Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

CONSULAR SERVICE.

Miss WARD: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of serving British consuls not of British birth; the proportion drawing remuneration; and the total sum involved?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): As my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, His Majesty's Consular Service consists of, first, established salaried consular officers, and, secondly, honorary officers. There are at present 366 established officers, all of whom are British subjects. There are in addition 447 honorary officers, of whom 340 are of British nationality and 107 of foreign nationality. None of these receives a salary, but they are granted allowances towards their consular office expenses. I may add that foreign nationals are not appointed to British consular posts unless no suitable British subject is available.

AIR-MINISTRY (AERONAUTICAL INSPECTION DEPARTMENT).

Mr. SIMMONDS: 41.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that the efficiency of the British aircraft industry is being prejudiced by delays in the work of the Aeronautical Inspection Department owing to insufficiency of staff; and whether, pending further devolution of the Department's duties upon the staffs of the contractors, he will immediately increase the personnel of this Department?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): I have no evidence that the efficiency of the aircraft industry is being prejudiced in the
manner suggested by my hon. Friend, but if he has any specific case in mind, and will furnish me with particulars, I will have it investigated. I should add, however, that the staff of the Aeronautical Inspection Department is under continuous review in the light of the changing requirements of the aircraft industry, and additional appointments are now in fact being made.

NEW BUILDINGS, WHITEHALL AND EDINBURGH.

Mr. GLOSSOP: 63.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he has any statement to make with regard to the proposed new Government building in Whitehall?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Woolwich East (Mr. Hicks) on 31st October, to which I have nothing to add.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Will my right hon. Friend ensure, as far as he can, that the building is of more classic design than the proposed new building in Edinburgh?

Mr. GUY: 65.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether in view of the Edinburgh Corporation having now approved the plans for the proposed new Government buildings on the Calton site, he will consider giving the necessary instructions for such further demolition work as is necessary to be proceeded with forthwith so that work for the unemployed may be provided thereby this winter?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The greater part of the demolition work remaining to be done will properly form part of the contract for foundations, the drawings and specifications for which will not be available for a considerable period. In any event I am not in a position to authorise any expenditure in connection with this scheme in advance of Parliamentary authority, which will be sought when the Civil Estimates for 1935 (Class VII) are presented.

LAND REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT.

Mr. THORNE: 73.
asked the Attorney-General the grades and the wages paid per grade to the staff employed in the
Land Registry Office in Lincoln's Inn Fields; and the profits of the Land Registry Office for the past three years?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): In reply to the first part of the question, I beg to refer the hon. Member to the detailed Estimates presented to Parliament (Class 111-8) where complete particulars are given of the grades and the wages paid per grade. As regards the second part of the question, the receipts of the Land Registry Office in the years ending 31st March, 1931, 1932 and 1933 exceeded the expenses by the following amounts:—






£


1931
…
…
…
44,287


1932
…
…
…
30,973


1933
…
…
…
50,458


The above figures relate to the Land Registry Office as a whole including the Middlesex Deeds Registry and the Land Charges and Agricultural Credits Department, and not merely to the Land Registration Department.

Mr. THORNE: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the staff in question had a reduction in their pay in 1930, and, if so, whether the reduction has been restored?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I should like notice of that question. As the hon. Member knows, the wages of the staff of the Land Registry are fixed, as are the wages of other civil servants, according to the conditions and regulations in force at the time.

Oral Answers to Questions — ASSASSINATIONS, MARSEILLES (ARRESTS).

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the fact that one of the arrests made in connection with the Marseilles assassination was that of a Bulgarian carrying a British passport; and whether he has investigated the circumstances under which this man obtained it?

Sir J. SIMON: No report to this effect has been brought to the notice of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom.

Oral Answers to Questions — MANCHURIA.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
whether, as the creation of a petroleum monopoly in Manchukuo conflicts with the open-door policy which the Japanese Government has promised to maintain, he will state what action is being taken by the Powers concerned?

Sir JOHN HASLAM: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the importance of Manchurian trade to Great Britain, he can state whether the Japanese Government still stands by the principles of the open door as applied to that country, or whether, in the view of His Majesty's Government, the creation of an oil monopoly is an infringement of this principle?

Sir J. SIMON: The House was informed by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal yesterday, in reply to a question addressed to him by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have communicated their views on the proposal for a, monopoly to the authorities in Manchuria and to the Japanese Government. I have not yet received replies to this communication and would prefer in the meantime not to pronounce conclusions on the matter. I regret that I am not in a position to give particulars of action which other Governments may have taken.

Mr. MANDER: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the object of the British industrial commission to Manchukuo; whether this has been undertaken with the approval of the Government; and whether there has been any change in the Government's attitude of non-recognition of Manchukuo in accordance with the decision of the Assembly of the League of Nations

Sir J. SIMON: In a statement issued to the Press on the 10th August, the Federation of British Industries announced that they had decided to send an industrial mission in the immediate future to Manchukuo to study conditions in that country and to ascertain whether British industry could co-operate with the local interests in its development. The statement added that the mission would pay a short visit of courtesy and good will to Japan to establish friendly contact with the representative organisations of Japanese in-
dustry and commerce. In view of the strictly commercial and non-political character of this unofficial mission, the question of His Majesty's Government's approval of it has not arisen. His Majesty's Government's attitude towards the question of the recognition of the present régime in Manchuria continues to be governed by the principles embodied in the resolution taken by the Assembly of the League of Nations on the 24th February, 1933.

Mr. MANDER: Is it not a fact that an impression has been widely created in the Far East that this visit is a preliminary to a change of policy on the part of the British Government; and am I to understand that there is no intention whatever of making any change?

Mr. BOOTHBY: Has the attention of my right hon. Friend been drawn to statements made by members of this commission on policy in favour of the revival of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance; and, in view of misunderstandings that might be created, may we take it from my right hon. Friend that these statements have no authority from the British Government?

Sir J. SIMON: They certainly have no authority whatever. I am not prepared to accept as necessarily accurate everything that I read in the papers. I therefore make no comment on what may have happened, but there can be no doubt that this commission and every member of it was entirely unofficial and had no authority to make any declaration on policy.

Mr. HANNON: Is it not a fact that the work of this commission has been a distinct advantage to British trade in that part of the world?

Sir J. SIMON: Yes, but it is just as well to keep commercial and political affairs separate.

Captain CAZALET: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many commercial or Consular representatives have now been appointed to Manchukuo; and in which towns are they resident?

Sir J. SIMON: There are six Consular officers in Manchuria; three at Harbin, two at Mukden and one at Newchwang.

Captain CAZALET: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is within contemplation to appoint any more in the near future

Sir J. SIMON: I could not answer that question without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-NAVAL MEN (COLOMBIAN ENGAGEMENT).

Mr. MANDER: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the present position with regard to the British ex-officers and naval ratings who joined the Colombian navy on a two-years contract; whether any of them have now returned to this country, and the reason for this; whether the undertakings given to the British Government by the Colombian Government have in all respects been kept; and what action he proposes to take, in view of complaints of misrepresentation, bad food, loss of kit, and irregular pay?

Sir J. SIMON: The present position is that British ex-naval officers and men continue to be employed by the Colombian Government. Of the 242 ratings who were engaged about 30 have, I understand, returned to this country, the majority for personal reasons or reasons of health, but a few on being discharged as undesirable. As has previously been explained to the hon. Member, these men were engaged direct by the Colombian Government; the only undertaking given by the latter to His Majesty's Government was to the effect that the men would not be called upon to undertake any duties contrary to their obligations as British subjects. This undertaking has been fully complied with. The ratings still in Colombia are, according to may information, entirely satisfied with their conditions, and consider that the complaints which have been made by certain of those who have returned are without justification. Ratings who are not satisfied are at complete liberty to withdraw after giving notice, and I do not propose to take any action in this matter.

Mr. MANDER: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a number of these men returned at the earliest possible moment owing to grave dissatisfaction with the conditions which they found were quite contrary to the undertakings
given; that, although a promise was made that they would be called upon to take part in no fighting, on one occasion, after the ship left Trinidad, it was cleared for action in order to meet an anticipated attack from the Peruvian navy; that they have never been asked to train any Colombian sailors and that there are none ready for training; and that in other respects the gravest dissatisfaction exists?

Sir J. SIMON: I have seen the papers in this matter, and I am not aware of the matters which the hon. Member asserts are facts. I know that some complaints were made by some of the returned men, but they have been repudiated by the officers and men who are remaining.

Mr. MANDER: Will my right hon. Friend allow me to bring some facts to his notice?

Sir J. SIMON: With the greatest pleasure.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMS TRAFFIC INQUIRY, UNITED STATES.

Mr. MANDER: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make with reference to the evidence given by Mr. Carlton Rich, an agent of the firm of Federal Laboratories Incorporated of America, before the Senatorial inquiry of the United States of America, in which he stated that the British ambassador interested himself in a prospective sale to the Montevideo police force and even arranged to have Montevideo police officials sent to London for training?

Sir J. SIMON: Yes, Sir, I have a statement to make. The statement is that the story referred to in the hon. Member's Question is entirely untrue. It is only fair to Mr. Carlton Rich to add that he himself declared that what he was repeating was mere hearsay and not, as would be inferred from the hon. Member's Question, evidence of something he knew. The facts are as follow. His Majesty's Minister at Montevideo, who was for many years Counsellor to His Majesty's Embassy at Buenos Aires, on his own initiative arranged recently for two members of the Argentine police force to visit England in order to study English police methods. I should explain that it
is a regular practice for arrangements to be made for the interchange of visits by members of the police forces of the various countries of the world. No expense to His Majesty's Government was involved. Similar arrangements were also made by him for a member of the Montevideo police force to visit this country. I welcomed this action as promoting useful co-operation between the police forces of these two countries and of the United Kingdom. The proposal was an entirely innocent and proper one and had no indirect motive whatever. I wish to make it quite plain that there was no question of His Majesty's Minister interesting himself in any sale or prospective sale of anything—not even policemen's boots—and that this matter has no connection whatever, as is implied in the hon. Member's Question, with the international trade in arms.

Mr. MANDER: Does not my right hon. Friend think that an opportunity ought to be provided for repudiating these grave charges and for stating the true facts, as he has done to-day?

Sir J. SIMON: I must thank the hon. Member for giving me the opportunity, but I hope that in future he will not put down questions which suggest that evidence has been given on matters of fact when the record shows that the suggestion was qualified by the statement that the witness did not know and was speaking from hearsay.

Mr. MANDER: It is not a fact that the Question merely stated what has appeared in the Press and was put in order that a repudiation might take place?

Sir J. SIMON: I, too, have seen the statement in the "News Chronicle," word for word as in this Question, but in the "News Chronicle" there followed a sentence which said: "The witness added that what he was referring to was mere hearsay."

Oral Answers to Questions — MOROCCO (CUSTOMS CHARGES).

Sir PERCY HURD: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Spanish customs authorities in Morocco are making a charge upon the personal luggage of British passengers in transit through the Spanish zone from the interior to the
international port of Tangier; and whether he will state under what authority such a customs charge is made?

Sir J. SIMON: No, Sir; I have received no information on this subject. If my hon. Friend will furnish me with particulars, I will cause enquiries to be made.

Sir P. HURD: Does the right hon. Gentleman know whether there is any authority for such a customs charge?

Sir J. SIMON: I think, if it be convenient to my hon. Friend, it would be better that I should have the information. A great deal depends, of course, on the kind of charge it is. One must see the details before one can answer with authority.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

CENTROSOJUS (ENGLAND), LIMITED.

Mr. NUNN: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Centrosojus (England), Limited, is included in the register, kept at offices of British consulates in China, of companies incorporated or registered in the United Kingdom and carrying on business in China; whether he will state the nationality of the directors and shareholders of the company and the nationality of the members of the Shanghai staff of the company; and whether the company is subject to the jurisdiction of His Majesty's courts in China as a British company?

Sir J. SIMON: Centrosojus (England), Limited, is incorporated under the Companies Acts of this country and is registered as a British company accordingly at His Majesty's Consulate-General at Shanghai. As regards the second part of the question, I have no detailed information, but I understand that the company is predominantly Russian in character. Since, however, it is registered as a British company it is subject to the jurisdiction of His Majesty's courts in China.

Mr. NUNN: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether it is not a matter of option on the part of the Foreign Office whether a company is allowed to be registered locally in Shanghai? Is it not a
fact, for instance, that this company does not enjoy ordinary consular protection, but enjoys only the protection of the British courts; and, in view of the fact that the staff is entirely Russian, is it not likely that this sort of proceeding will make the Chinese authorities even more restive under the extra-territoriality rights than they are at the present moment?

Sir J. SIMON: I am sure that my hon. Friend knows this subject very well. My understanding is that His Majesty's consular officers in China cannot legally refuse to register a company which is a British company, but the fact that the company is so registered and so subject to the jurisdiction of British courts in China does not ipso facto entitle it to receive British protection.

Mr. NUNN: Will my right hon. Friend make further inquiry as to whether it is not the fact that it is necessary that the list should be approved

Sir J. SIMON: I will look into that.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: Is it not wrong that this company, all of whose directors belong to a country which has gloried in abandoning extraterritoriality, should on the first occasion rush to the protection of the British courts to get justice?

"ORIENTAL AFFAIRS" (POSTAL BAN).

Mr. NUNN: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that in spite of representations made to the Government of China the postal ban on "Oriental Affairs" continues; and what further steps he is taking to secure its removal?

Sir J. SIMON: According to my latest information the postal ban imposed upon "Oriental Affairs" was recently still in force. The matter is, however, still engaging the attention of His Majesty's Minister. I regret that I cannot say more at the moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

BUILDING CONTRACTS (ALLOCATION).

Miss WARD: 13.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the total value of the work allocated to the Tyne and Clyde, respectively, under the naval programmes 1932–33, 1933–34, and 1934–35?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Mcnsell): The approximate figures for the hulls and machinery of ships included in the programmes mentioned are:

£


Clyde

…
…
6,000,000


Tyne
…
…
…
2,900,000

In addition, orders for armour, gun mountings, guns and engines have been placed to the approximate value of:

£


Clyde

…
…
300,000


Tyne
…
…
…
1,300,000

Miss WARD: 14.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what contracts have yet to be placed under the 1934–35 programme, and if tenders have yet been invited?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: The only vessels of the 1934 programme so far allocated are the leader and destroyers, details of which were recently announced in the Press. Of the remaining vessels in the programme, tenders have either been invited or will be invited within the next two months.

Miss WARD: May I ask whether we may at an early date expect an announcement as to where the two cruisers are to he built

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: I hope at a very early date.

Captain CRAWFORD BROWNE: 16.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the total value of work allocated to Belfast under the naval programmes of 1932–33, 1933–34, and 1934–35?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: The only shipbuilding contract allocated to Belfast under the naval programmes of 1932, 1933 and 1934, is for the hull and machinery of the cruiser Penelope of the 1933 programme. As it is contrary to practice to divulge contract prices of particular ships, I regret that the value of the order cannot be furnished.

ADMIRALTY PAPERS (MISSING IN TRANSIT).

Sir GIFFORD FOX: 15.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state, in connection with the recent suspected loss of Admiralty confidential papers in transit from Hebburn-on-Tyne to Portsmouth, for what reason the box containing these papers was not kept
throughout the journey in the personal custody of the Admiralty messenger and taken with him into his compartment, in view of the fact that its size was only 24 inches by 21 inches by 14 inches; and why, if it is permitted to leave such papers in the guard's van, they cannot be sent without the assistance of a messenger, in the interests of economy?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: The box was not in charge of a specially detailed messenger, but of an official who happened to be returning from the Tyne to Portsmouth on official duty, and it might well have been sent unaccompanied, in charge of the guard. The incident occurred in the month of August, and thus received more publicity than it deserved.

HIS MAJESTY'S SILVER JUBILEE CELEBRATIONS (REVIEW).

Commander MARSDEN: 17.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what part His Majesty's Navy will take in the Silver Jubilee celebrations in 1935?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: As part of the Silver Jubilee celebrations, His Majesty the King hopes to review the Fleet at Spithead on Tuesday, 16th July, 1935, or, should the weather on that day be unsuitable, on Wednesday, 17th July, 1935. The ships which are to take part in the review have not yet been finally selected, but in addition to the Home and part of the Reserve Fleets, certain units of the Mediterranean Fleet will probably be present. His Majesty, in the Victoria and Albert, will lead the Fleet to sea for exercises on the forenoon of the day following the review.

Commander MARSDEN: Will special arrangements be made for providing accommodation for Members of this House who wish to visit the Fleet?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: I think that my hon. and gallant Friend had better apply through the usual channels.

Oral Answers to Questions — HAIFA, BAGDAD, TEHERAN (RAILWAY).

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the prospects of an early completion of railway communication between Haifa, Bagdad, and Teheran; and whether, in view of the
completion of the harbour at Haifa and of the pipe-line thereto, he will give every assistance to this work?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): So many different factors and interests are involved in the proposal for the construction of these railways that I am unable at present to give a definite answer to either question, but I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the bearing thereon of the completion of Haifa harbour and of the pipe-line has not been lost sight of.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA.

CRIMINAL OFFENCES.

Sir A. KNOX: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many cases of attempted criminal assault on white women by natives of Kenya have been reported in the last 12 months; and whether these crimes are on the increase or not?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: In the last 12 months there have been one case of rape, five of indecent assault and four other assaults. The Governor informs me that these crimes are not on the increase.

Sir A. KNOX: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the sentences given in these cases are sufficient, in view of the widespread nervousness among women in Kenya?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not think it would be proper for me to comment on sentences given by a court.

Lord SCONE: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of cases in which white persons have been the victims of murder, criminal assault, and common assault, respectively, in Kenya during this year, together with the number of cases in which the criminals have escaped detection or apprehension; and whether he is satisfied that European settlers in outlying districts are assured at present of adequate protection?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE - LISTER: The statistics of the crimes committed against Europeans by natives in Kenya during the present year show that there have
been one murder, 14 cases of criminal assault and seven of common assault. With one single exception no criminal concerned in these offences has escaped detection and apprehension. I am satisfied that the Government of Kenya is taking all reasonable measures to preserve law and order.

Lord SCONE: Does my right hon. Friend consider that 14 cases of criminal assault show that sufficient protection is afforded to settlers in these remote parts?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think if the Noble Lord has a wide knowledge of these territories, he will agree that there are very many factors to be taken into consideration.

Sir G. FOX: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that, prior to the recent outbreak of planned armed robberies and other outrages by the young Lumbwa natives fomented by the witch doctors, warning was given to the administration of Kenya that such outbreaks were likely to occur, but no attention was paid to these warnings; whether he is satisfied that adequate steps have been taken to protect in the future the lives and property of isolated settlers; and what the nature of these steps has been?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have no doubt that the Government of Kenya kept itself fully informed with regard to conditions among the Lumbwa and took all practicable measures to deal with the situation. As regards the second part of the question I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I have just given to my Noble Friend the Member for Perth (Lord Scone). The Colonial Government were satisfied that the outbreak of lawlessness was due to the activities of the Laibons (witch doctors) and an Ordinance has been passed which empowers the Government to take the drastic step of deporting these people and their families to an appropriate district remote from the tribal area—a measure for which the Lumbwa tribe themselves petitioned.

Lord SCONE: Can my right hon. Friend say whether, in fact, these ruffians have been removed to a safe distance?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, they have not yet been removed, but they will be.

Captain P. MACDONALD: Has it been ascertained whether these men belong to that particular tribe?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I should like notice of that question.

DEATH SENTENCES (APPEAL).

Lord SCONE: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the sentence of death recently passed upon seven Lumbwa natives, in Kenya, for the murder of Mr. Semini, has been carried out; and, if not, when the execution is to take place?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir; appeals have been lodged against the convictions and are awaiting hearing by the East Africa Court of Appeal.

Lord SCONE: Can my right hon. Friend say when these appeals are likely to be heard?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, I do not know.

Sir G. FOX: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the recent case in Kenya, which involved the murder of Mr. Semini and the rape of his wife by some Lumbwa natives, he will consult with the Governor of Kenya as to the desirability of executing the criminals in public, with a view to impressing upon the native population the serious nature of the crime; and whether, in this connection, his attention has been called to the existing practice in India and, in particular, to the public execution on 6th August at Shandadkot of two dacoits who had previously terrorised the Larkana district of Sind?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir. The Governor informs me that if the sentences are upheld on appeal and the law takes its course, he proposes to follow the recommendation of the recent Commission of Inquiry into the Administration of Justice in East Africa and arrange for representatives of the community to which the condemned men belong to see them before and after execution, in order that the fact that the death sentences have been carried out may be generally known. I am aware of the very exceptional circumstances of the case to which my hon. Friend refers in the last part of his question.

Sir G. FOX: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the feeling among white
settlers out there who, in large numbers, would very much like there to be a public execution?

HON. MEMBERS: Shame.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am honestly very sorry that that question has been put. It has been the consistent policy in the Colonial Empire for some time past not to have public executions, and I think it is a policy which is appreciated just as much in the Colonial Empire as in this House.

Captain GUEST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the grave dissatisfaction among the settlers in Kenya Colony, and that many settlers who, in the past, would have left their homes and wives, are not prepared to do so now; and is it not worth his while to pay very careful attention to the questions that have been asked this afternoon?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I should have thought that my answers showed that the Kenya Government are paying the very closest attention to this matter. I am in constant touch with them. When there was serious lawlessness in the Lumbwa, as this condition of affairs was traced to the machinations of these witch doctors, the unique step has been taken of passing an Ordinance authorising the removal of the whole of these mischief-makers into an area where they will be completely isolated from everybody. The Colonial Office are keeping very careful watch on the situation.

Captain GUEST: May I be allowed to ask the right hon. Gentleman one more question. Is he aware that the delay in the summary justice applied to these murders in the Lumbwa is causing increased dissatisfaction

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I hope the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will read the report of the official committee which sat in East Africa and which has gone carefully into the causes of delay in certain cases, which, he no doubt knows, is an extremely difficult thing. If you were to try all these cases by judges you would need to increase the number of judges. There is also the right of appeal. You cannot take away the right of these people to appeal.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOMALILAND.

Mr. LUNN: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has ascertained that a right of appeal against the District Commissioners' Courts in cases of sentence of death exists in Somaliland; and, if not, whether he will take steps to ensure that this right of appeal shall exist?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: A District Officer can only try offences punishable with death if he is specially empowered by the Commissioner to do so in the absence from the Protectorate of either the Commissioner or the Secretary to the Government, who are the officers empowered to hold the Protectorate Court. In such cases a right of appeal lies to the Protectorate Court.

Mr. LUNN: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has considered memorials sent to him containing various grievances of the population of Somaliland on the administration of justice and other questions; and whether, in order to examine the legitimacy or otherwise of these grievances, he will send a commission of inquiry to the Colony with instructions to take evidence from Somali witnesses

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I assume that the hon. Member refers to a number of memorials submitted by a certain Haji Farah Omar. I have examined these and am satisfied that they are either untrue or much distorted and exaggerated. I should add that I have received other memorials from the responsible leaders of many of the tribes in the Protectorate, who upon learning of the action of Haji Farah in addressing me, have hastened to assure His Majesty's Government of their confidence in the methods of the present Administration and to repudiate Haji Farah's claim to speak on behalf of the inhabitants of the Protectorate. In the circumstances I do not propose to take any action on the matters raised in his memorials.

Mr. LUNN: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that the expenditure on education for the population of British Somaliland, which numbers 350,000 persons, is £500 per annum, he will take steps to increase the educational facilities in this Colony?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The financial position of the Protectorate unfortunately precludes at present any increased expenditure on education, but the Commissioner has under consideration schemes for the extension of educational facilities, to be introduced as soon as the financial situation permits.

Mr. LUNN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say to what extent the increase is to be incurred, and what money is to be provided for the purpose?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am sorry to say that there is no money available. My hon. Friend knows that Somaliland is in receipt of a very large grant-in-aid from this country. We have in hand plans which we should like to put into operation when times are better and we have the money to spend.

Mr. PALING: Is not less being spent now than formerly?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I would like notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — SEYCHELLE ISLANDS.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet received considered recommendations on the financial and trading conditions in the Seychelle Islands from the Governor, who took up his appointment last February; and, if so, what decision has been reached?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Since he took up his appointment last March the Governor, with my approval, has initiated a programme of retrenchment as a result of which it is hoped to balance the Budget for 1935 with a small surplus. The Governor has also submitted several applications for assistance from the Colonial Development Fund with the object of fostering economic development in the Colony. Four of these have been approved and the fifth is under consideration.

Captain EVANS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say the amount of the assistance which has been rendered by the Department—the total amount voted from the special fund?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Between £4,000 and £5,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION.

AIR SERVICES (SPEED).

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: 31.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether it is possible to provide faster air services without adding to the cost of transit; and, if not, what steps he proposes to take in connection with future development in order to hold the balance between those who are anxious to have lower rates and those who demand higher speed?

Sir P. SASSOON: My hon. Friend's question raises issues which are too complex to be dealt with within the limits of a Parliamentary reply. I can only say that proposals for accelerating our imperial air services without a disproportionate increase in cost have been under consideration for some time past, though I am riot yet in a position to make any detailed statement.

Mr. SMITH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, when this matter is under consideration by the Post Office, he will remember that there may be a greater demand for a lower tariff than for a somewhat higher speed?

Sir. P. SASSOON: I hope that our programme will satisfy both those desiderata.

Mr. LYONS: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House when the new programme may be disclosed?

Sir P. SASSOON: I hope in about a month or two.

Mrs. TATE: Can we have the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that the question of aerodynamics will be taken into consideration in regard to speed; is he aware that in the Curtiss-Wright Condor, if the retractable under-carriage is left down the speed is lowered by 30 miles an hour, and that in the streamlined Vultee the removal of the 2 feet 6 inch streamlined radio mast increased the speed by seven miles an hour; and does this not prove that speed may be increased by better aerodynamical design, in which case it is economical?

Sir P. SASSOON: All those important questions will, of course, be taken into account.

Mr. ROBINSON: 32.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air, whether he
has any information to give the House as to the relative speed and efficiency of British and Dutch commercial aircraft operating commercial air services to India and the East?

Sir P. SASSOON: Dealing simply with the existing position, the cruising speeds of the British aircraft at present used on the service from England to Singapore range from 105 miles per hour to 120 miles per hour. The cruising speeds of the Dutch aircraft range from 107 to 119 miles per hour. Both services reach a very high standard in regularity of operation.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Can the right hon. Gentleman do something to speed up aeroplanes on the first part of the journey between London and Paris, which is the most frequently used and is the slowest of the lot?

Sir P. SASSOON: I think our new programme will contain all that.

FRENCH TERRITORY (BRITISH AIRCRAFT).

Mr. ROBINSON: 33.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what are the principal points of difficulty that have arisen in negotiating with the French Government for permission for British aircraft carrying commercial loads to fly between Le Bourget and Marseilles; and whether he is aware that no similar difficulties experienced by the K.L.M. lines of Holland?

Sir P. SASSOON: As stated in my reply to my hon. Friend on the 1st November, negotiations are in progress on the subject. I hope that a satisfactory settlement of these negotiations may be reached before long, and in the circumstances I should prefer not to make any statement at the present moment.

Mr. ROBINSON: In view of the fact that British air lines continue to be at a disadvantage, will the right hon. Gentleman say how soon he expects a settlement

Mr. SIMMONDS: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think, seeing that this matter has gone on from year to year, and that the French Government have prevented our having an effective Imperial air service, that it is time to consider taking reprisals, if that should. unfortunately, be necessary?

Sir P. SASSOON: I have said that negotiations are proceeding.

Mr. LYONS: Is it not a fact that our Imperial air service is effective?

IMPERIAL AIRWAYS, LIMITED (SUBSIDIES).

Mr. ROBINSON: 34.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the annual amount of the subsidy paid to Imperial Airways, Limited, and the amount paid by the Dutch Government to the K.L.M. line of Holland; and whether he is satisfied that in terms of relative efficiency on the England-to-India air route the results have justified the conditions on which the subsidy to Imperial Airways, Limited, has been given?

Sir P. SASSOON: The subsidy to Imperial Airways in the current Air Estimates (including contributions from Dominion and Colonial Governments) is approximately £560,000 in respect of all their services. It is not possible to give a corresponding figure for the Dutch K.L.M. service, or to make a close financial comparison in respect of the routes to the East, as financial assistance is given to that service partly by guaranteed postal payments and partly by an indemnity against loss on operation. I am fully satisfied, however, from a comparison of all the data available, that the results have amply justified the conditions on which the subsidies to Imperial Airways have been paid.

VARIABLE PITCH PROPELLERS.

Rear - Admiral Sir MURRAY SUETER: 35.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether any research work has been done to ascertain the value of variable pitch propellers for aircraft; and if any report has been or is to be issued to the aircraft industry for their guidance?

Sir P. SASSOON: Yes, Sir; six reports on research work done by the Air Ministry in connection with variable pitch propellers have been issued to the aircraft industry since 1932, and a seventh is in preparation.

SAFETY DEVICES.

Mr. DORAN: 37.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been drawn to the loss of life to air passengers, due to the absence of live-saving devices in passenger air-
craft; if he will introduce legislation making it compulsory on all passenger air-services to carry safety devices; and if, in order to meet the expense of such installation, he is prepared to grant a subsidy to these services?

Sir P. SASSOON: I am unable to agree with my hon. Friend that there has been preventable loss of life on passenger air services arising from the absence of lifesaving devices. The existing regulations require that life-belts must be carried by public transport aircraft on flights at any point of which the aircraft will be more than 10 miles from land. As at present advised, my Noble Friend does not consider further regulations on the subject desirable.

ACCIDENTS.

Mr. SIMMONDS: 40.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he can make any statement upon the recent loss of two British aircraft plying between England and the Continent

Sir P. SASSOON: The cases referred to by my hon. Friend, which we all regret, are under investigation by the Inspector of Accidents. The substance of the Inspector's conclusions will be published when his reports have been received.

GERMAN AIRSPORT ASSOCIATION.

Mr. WHITESIDE: 42.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he has any information as to the number of members of the German Airsport Association; and what support, if any, the association receives from the German Government?

Sir P. SASSOON: The membership of the German Airsport Association (Deutsche Luftsport Verband) is estimated as about 60,000. I have no information as to the financial or other assistance given to the association by the German Government, apart from a grant of 1,230,000 R.Mks. for gliding and some small grants for prizes and free ballooning.

Mr. WHITESIDE: If a similar organisation were formed in this country, would it receive the support of the Air Ministry?

Sir P. SASSOON: I should have to have notice of that question.

Mr. PIKE: Could the Under-Secretary say to what extent this association is under the control of the German Government?

Sir P. SASSOON: I could not say.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

NAVY (PROTECTION).

Mr. WHYTE: 36.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the information obtained as a result of the recent combined naval and air exercises, he is satisfied that our air services are sufficient to provide the Navy with adequate protection against attacks from the air?

Sir P. SASSOON: The air services of the country, present and prospective, are on the scale approved by His Majesty's Government as adequate for their purpose, and this is not affected by the experience of the recent exercises.

Mr. WHITESIDE: Is it the considered judgment of the Government that six aircraft carriers are sufficient to protect the Navy against air attack in all parts of the world?

Sir P. SASSOON: I said "air services present and prospective."

ARMAMENT TRAINING (ADDITIONAL RANGE).

Mr.McKIE: 38.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he has any further statement to make regarding the proposed aerial bombing station at Luce Bay, Wigtownshire?

Sir P. SASSOON: I regret that I am not in a position to add to the information I gave my hon. Friend on the 5th July last.

DANGER ZONE, ST. ANDREW'S BAY.

Mr. HENDERSON STEWART: 39.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he has considered the letter, Elated 3rd November, addressed to the Air Ministry from the University Court of St. Andrews, with reference to the proposed extension of the danger zone for air-firing and bombing in St. Andrew's Bay; and whether he can give assurances on the various fears expressed?

Sir P. SASSOON: The letter referred to by my hon. Friend was received in the Air Ministry on the 5th November. He may be assured that it will receive the most careful consideration. There is no intention of bringing the actual operational area any nearer to the city than it has hitherto been.

Mr. STEWART: Would my right hon. Friend, in order to allay the natural fears and remove the misunderstanding which undoubtedly exists, consider sending a responsible official of his Department to meet the University Court and the town council and give them full particulars and details and discuss the matter with them frankly?

Sir P. SASSOON: I am ready to consider that suggestion, but I have said that the operational area is not to be brought any nearer to the city than it has hitherto been.

Mr. GEORGE MORRISON: In view of the very real anxiety in the minds of the University Court, will the right hon. Gentleman agree to the suggestion of my hon. Friend to send someone to explain the matter to them?

Sir P. SASSOON: I will certainly convey that suggestion to my Noble Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

MOTOR-DRIVING TESTS.

Colonel GOODMAN: 44.
asked the Minister of Transport whether any progress has been made in defining tests to be passed by motor-vehicle drivers; and what bodies are to be responsible for the carrying out of such tests?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I have circulated to a large number of representative organisations a draft of regulations proposed to be made under Section 6 (5) of the Road Traffic Act, 1934, and I have received as a result many helpful suggestions, which I am now considering. I also have under consideration the machinery for carrying out the tests.

ONE-WAY TRAFFIC (LONDON SQUARES).

Major BEAUM0NT THOMAS: 45.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the increasing congestion of London traffic, he will take steps to insti-
tute one-way traffic in all London squares and prohibit the parking of vehicles on both sides of main thoroughfares?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The question of introducing "one-way" working in all London squares has been often considered. The view of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, in which I concur, is that the system should only be introduced where it is likely to effect some definite improvement. The committee are at present reviewing the unilateral system for waiting vehicles which is being tried in Jermyn Street, and as soon as I receive their report I will consider the question of extending the system to other important streets.

Major THOMAS: Is it not a fact that, where the one-way system has been instituted in squares, it has been very satisfactory; and that it takes months, if not years, to get these very necessary regulations laid down?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Where it has been introduced it is satisfactory, and that is why I am anxious not to introduce it where it would be unsatisfactory.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Is it not a fact that great congestion of traffic is caused in many parts of London, notably in the City, because the lights do not work properly; and will the Minister make inquiries in different parts of London as to the working of the lights?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I shall be most happy to consider any information which my hon. Friend is good enough to lay before me.

CYCLISTS (REGULATION'S).

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 46.
asked the Minister of Transport whether in view of the fact that manufacturers are not able to supply all cyclists with the new whitetail for their machines, he proposes to postpone the date when proceedings will be taken against those cyclists without such white tails?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It is within the power of any cyclist to comply with the regulations at the cost of a few pence and a few minutes' labour. I have no power to prohibit legal proceedings, but, as I have already announced, I expect that for a short time to come non-com-
pliance with these regulations will ordinarily be dealt with by way of caution rather than by way of prosecution.

Mr. HOWARD GRITTEN: Would a live light be an allowable alternative to this white device—an electric reflector?

Lieut.-Colonel CHARLES Mac-ANDREW: Does not the Minister think that these white tails on bicycles are really of no use, especially if a car is coming in the opposite direction with headlights, which cause cyclists to think that they are in a much safer position than they are; and, as motor bicycles have to carry rear lights, and they are very much safer inasmuch as their speed is very much nearer that of a motor car, does not my lion. Friend consider that bicyclists should carry a red light for their own protection

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No doubt what my hon. and gallant Friend says is true. Such regulations as have been made have been made in the interests of the safety of the cyclists themselves, though some of them do not appear to consider that to be the case. They are like a lot of hysterical prima donnas.

ROAD SERVICE LICENCES.

Captain P. MACDONALD: 47.
asked the Minister of Transport whether in view of the dissatisfaction of motor-coach owners with the present procedure of dealing with appeals from the decisions of the Road Traffic Commissioners under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, he will consider the desirability of introducing amending legislation which will enable an independent appeal tribunal to be set up to deal with these matters?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: This question was discussed by my predecessor with representatives of the industry, and procedure was modified in various directions. I do not think that at present it would be opportune to propose further legislation.

Captain MACDONALD: Having regard to the hardship which is being caused to private owners, and the great expense which appeals entail at the present time, will the Minister give consideration to the suggestion I have made?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I shall be most hapy to give consideration to my hon.
and gallant Friend's proposal. I would point out that, in dealing with these appeals, I am advised by an independent officer, and not by officers of my Department.

FOOTPATHS AND VERGES.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 48.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, with a view to furthering the campaign for reducing road accidents, he will take fresh steps to ensure that highway authorities shall do their utmost to carry out the terms of Section 58 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, which declares that it is their duty to provide, wherever necessary or desirable, proper footpaths for pedestrians and margins for riders?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The provision of footways or margins or both in all cases where they are practicable and desirable is now a condition of grants from the Road Fund. Similarly, all highway authorities have been warned that grants will not be made towards road widening operations by which pedestrians are deprived of footways or verges.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: May I call the Minister's attention to the fact that he has not included in his answer any reference to horses; and may I ask him whether he considers that horses should be excluded from this beneficent lifesaving provision?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I was not intending to exclude horses. I used the word "verge," winch would include them.

Commander MARSDEN: Where footpaths are provided, will the Minister take care that the surface of the path is as good as that of the road? On all country roads now every pedestrian walks on the tarred surface of the road, which affords better going than the rougher surface of the path.

HUMBER BRIDGE SCHEME.

Mr. L. SMITH: 49.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the fact that the receipts for tolls at the new Mersey Tunnel have greatly exceeded expectations, he is now in a position to give more favourable consideration to the scheme for the new modern bridge over the Humber, which would similarly be paid for in part out of the taking of tolls?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The responsible local authorities have so far not succeeded in obtaining Parliamentary powers to construct a bridge over the Humber; and it is for them to consider in the first instance whether they would wish to make new proposals based in part on the collection of tolls.

Mr. SMITH: Seeing that the great enterprise of the tunnel under the Mersey appears to have turned out most satisfactorily, will the hon. Gentleman give his further assistance to the Humber bridge scheme should the responsible local authorities again approach him?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes. Any proposal made to me will have the most sympathetic consideration.

CONGESTION, BOND STREET.

Mrs. COPELAND: 50.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, with the view of relieving the congestion of traffic in Bond Street, he will consider a project for a tunnel between the Green Park arid Oxford Street so as to allow people who wish to reach the more distant parts of the city to do so by the most direct route?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: A few years ago consideration was given to a proposal to construct a tunnel from the Mall to Berkeley Square, but the proposal was abandoned because of the extent to which it would interfere with the Green Park. My hon. Friend's suggestion appears likely to be open to the same objection.

Major THOMAS: Is it not a fact that the congestion in Bond Street is entirely due to the parking of vehicles on both sides?

TRAFFIC LIGHT SIGNALS, NEWMAINS, LANARKSHIRE.

Lord SCONE: 53.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that at the traffic light signals at Newmains, Lanarkshire, the amber light shines for a period of less than half a second, thus giving approaching vehicles inadequate time to pull up when the light is about to change to red; and whether he will take steps to have this remedied?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am informed, on inquiry, that the amber light at this installation shines for two seconds, which appears to be sufficient to enable
approaching vehicles to draw up. If my Noble Friend is not satisfied, I shall be glad to have further inquiries made.

Mr. NOEL LINDSAY: Will my hon. Friend consider whether it is not possible to standardise the frequency of all these signs, as excessive variations add to the embarrassment of motorists?

REDUCED RAILWAY PASSENGER TICKETS (CONDITIONS).

Mr. MACLAY: 56.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the fact that persons travelling on the main railway systems of this country with workers' tickets, cheap week-end or summer tickets, have no claim in respect of damages to them through negligent acts of the railway company or its employés, and in view of the fact that a large percentage of passengers carried, including Members of Parliament, on summer tickets have no knowledge of such conditions, he will take steps to have the law altered or require that the railway companies give greater publicity to these conditions?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: There is nothing to prevent railway companies and their passengers from entering into special contracts which relieve the companies of their liabilities in consideration of a reduction in fares. I am, however, informed that summer tickets are issued on the same conditions as to liability as ordinary tickets.

Mr. MACLAY: In view of the large number of people travelling on workers' and week-end tickets, does the Minister not consider that the time has now come to alter the law regarding the contracting out of liability and, if he does not think the time is appropriate, will he urge the railway companies to state clearly upon the tickets that they have contracted out of liability?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have the greatest sympathy with what the hon. Member suggests. I was a little embarrassed to know whether he wished me to change the law or to ask the railway companies to make the provision better known. After consideration, if he will tell me which course he prefers, I will with pleasure consider his suggestion.

Mr. PIKE: Will my hon. Friend bear" in mind, too, that a large amount of this traffic owned or part owned by railway
companies and corporations is now borne on the roadways and the effect is precisely the same, as explained in the question, to the road-borne and to the rail traffic?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I will study my hon. Friend's supplementary question and, when I see what it means, I will try to answer it.

PUBLIC PASSENGER VEHICLES (SAFETY GLASS).

Mr. DORAN: 57.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the recent tramcar accident in Tottenham in which two persons lost their lives, and subsequent accidents elsewhere in which people have been seriously injured by fragments of splintered glass, he will introduce legislation at an early date to make the use of safety glass compulsory on all vehicles, tramcars, omnibuses, and trains operating in the public service?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am informed by the London Passenger Transport Board that in the tramcar accident at Tottenham no case of injury was occasioned by broken glass. The present regulations require that in the case of all new motor vehicles all glass fitted to windscreens or windows facing to the front, except glass fitted to the upper deck of double-decked vehicles, shall be safety glass. Similar requirements are made in respect of new trolley vehicles. I have in general no power to make such requirements in respect of railway carriages or tramcars, but I understand that on the London Passenger Transport Board's tramcars all vestibule screens are fitted with safety glass. I do not contemplate the introduction of further legislation on the subject.

TRAFFIC CONTROL, TOTTENHAM.

Mr. DORAN: 58.
asked the Minister of Transport if he has yet received the report from his advisers regarding the installation of traffic control signals and the suggested one-way traffic system from and to the Clock Tower via Woodville Road, Parchmore Road, and the High Street; and, if not, when he expects such a report?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am advised that it would be difficult to introduce signal control at this junction under existing arrangements. The whole traffic operation in this locality is being
examined and I expect shortly to receive a report on the matter from the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee.

SPEED LIMIT (CIRCULAR).

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: 59.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will consider placing in the Library or in the tea room of the House full-size samples in colour of the proposed restriction and derestriction signs as described in his Circular No. 407 (Roads) to mark the entrances and exits for 30 miles an hour speed limits?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, Sir.

Sir W. BRASS: 60.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will state the number of local authorities supplied with Circular No. 407 (Roads); and whether this is the first circular which has been issued to them on this subject?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA.: Circular No. 407 (Roads) was supplied to all County Councils, County Boroughs, Non-County Boroughs with separate police forces or with population of over 20,000, and Urban District Councils with population of over 20,000 in England and Wales, and to all County Councils and Town Councils in Scotland. The answer to the second part of the Question is in the affirmative.

Sir W. BRASS: How long is my hon. Friend giving the local authorities to answer this circular?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It will be necessary for them to have a proper survey of their areas. I hope my hon. Friend will not press me as to the exact date.

Sir W. BRASS: 61.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, seeing that the derestriction speed-limit sign described in his Circular No. 407 (Roads) is very similar in design to the signs used in Continental countries for the restriction of parking and forbidding the entrance into one-way streets, he will reconsider its authorisation?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The basis of the signs adopted on the Continent for indicating restrictions on the use of roads is a red ring or disc, and I do not think that there is any danger of confusing signs of this type with that of an oblique black bar on a white disc, as now proposed for indicating derestricted roads.

Sir W. BRASS: Has my hon. Friend considered the advisability of sending someone to Switzerland in order to see some of these signs, because the description that he has given is quite incorrect. There is a bar across, which means a restriction, and I think there should be uniformity in these things in all countries?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I will consider the sugesstion of sending someone to Switzerland and, if the hon. Member will undertake the task, I shall be grateful.

ROAD SURFACES.

Mr. SIMMONDS: 62.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has issued, or will issue, a circular to local authorities advising them in what manner glossy roadways can best be made safe; and whether he has indicated any date by which these dangerous conditions must be rectified?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Highway authorities have received from my Department detailed technical advice on the provision of non-slippery surfaces; and the importance of the matter was further emphasised in a Circular on "Public Safety" issued in February of this year. It is the duty of Highway authorities to remedy dangerous conditions due to slippery road surfaces, but if my hon. Friend will draw my attention to particular cases I will have inquiry made.

Mr. SIMMONDS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in many cases local authorities have roughened the surface of the road in proximity to the traffic lights, thereby indicating the generally unsafe state of the road, and does he not think that the fact that the rest of the road is not roughened is a glaring example of economy rather than the saving of life?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My hon. Friend is aware that highway authorities are autonomous bodies. I can only do my best to secure a uniform standard, and that has been done.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY POWER STATIONS, LONDON (SMOKE).

Mr. HANNON: 55.
asked the Minister of Transport when the report of the Government Chemists' Committee on the
measures adopted for the purification of smoke emitted by the power stations recently erected in the Greater London area will be presented to Parliament?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The committee have recently made a further report and I expect that it will be published shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOYA BEANS.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 64.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will, with the assistance of the Minister of Agriculture, cultivate in Hyde Park a demonstration bed of the soya beans acclimatised in Regent's Park so that horticulturists may have proof that this valuable fodder plant can be grown in England?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. I understand that the soya bean has been under experiment for several years in this country, and it appears to be demonstrated that the plant will come to maturity in a favourable season. Further experimental work is, however, necessary before the crop generally could he regarded as one to be safely commended to English farmers. In any case, however, I am satisfied that Hyde Park would be on every ground a most unsuitable site for either research or demonstration of a farmers' crop.

Oral Answers to Questions — MATERNAL MORTALITY.

Mr. BOOTHBY: 66.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the list of areas exhibiting a persistently high rate of maternal mortality included by the chief medical officer of the Ministry in his report for 1933, and whether the responsible local authorities in all or any of these areas give milk or food to expectant and nursing mothers?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The information in my Department shows that of the 125 maternity and child welfare authorities which function within the areas in question, all but three provide milk or food for expectant and nursing
mothers, and in one of these areas any necessary supply is provided by a voluntary society. As my hon. Friend is aware, my right hon. Friend has recently drawn the attention of all maternity and child welfare authorities to the importance of this provision and he is proposing to take special action on the whole problem in the areas to which he refers.

Earl WINTERTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some of the highest rates of mortality are to be found in some of the richer districts, and, for some unexplained reason, among the richer residents in those districts?

Miss RATHBONE: Will the hon. Member cause an inquiry to be made into the economic circumstances of the mothers who die in some of the typically high-rated areas?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: That matter will no doubt be taken into account when special investigation is made in a particular area.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Will the hon. Member make immediate representations to those local authorities who do not give supplies of milk or food to expectant and nursing mothers?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: We are doing that already.

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the hon. Gentleman do more than get into touch with those authorities, because he knows of the danger which occurs time after time, and we would like to know what the Ministry means to do or whether they do nothing.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING (TIMBER HOUSES).

Mr. DIXEY: 68.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the urgency of the housing problem and the difficulties encountered, whether with labour or finance, in the provision of houses built of brick, stone or similar materials, to be let at rents which the working population can afford to pay, he will consider the possibility of constructing in rural areas where new houses are badly needed economically planned fireproof timber houses or bungalows, either for temporary or permanent occupation, and at rents not exceeding five shillings per week, to tide over the immediate shortage
of accommodation in rural areas where the local authority is prepared to sanction such timber houses?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The design and materials of houses are matters as to which the initial responsibility is that of the local authorities Who provide the houses. My right hon. Friend is prepared to consider proposals for the erection of houses of timber construction, but he is advised that in normal circumstances there would be no appreciable saving of time or cost by the use of this method. The life of a timber house is shorter than that of a house of normal construction, and the effect of any economy in first cost would generally be neutralised by the consequential increase of the annual loan charges.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

NORFOLK AGRICULTURAL WAGES COMMITTEE.

Mr. THOMAS COOK: 71.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has any statement to make on the constitution of the Norfolk Agricultural Wages Committee?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): The Norfolk Agricultural Wages Committee is not yet fully constituted. I understand that the next meeting of the Committee is fixed for the 19th of this month, after which it is expected that the Committee will be fully constituted and, there is good reason to hope, difficulties which have been encountered will have been overcome. In the meantime, I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that it is desirable for me to avoid any further statement.

WAGES.

Captain CAZALET: 72.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how many and which counties have increased the wages of agricultural workers during the past year, and the approximate number of workers affected?

Mr. ELLIOT: During the 12 months ended 31st October last, 17 of the 47 Agricultural Wages Committees made increases in the minimum rates of wages for male workers and a further six Committees gave notice of proposals to that effect: six other Committees reduced the
number of hours in respect of which the weekly minimum wage is payable and in addition two Committees both increased the wage and reduced the hours. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving the areas concerned and the number of workers in those areas.

Following is the statement:

The areas where the Committees increased the minimum wage or gave notice to that effect were Berkshire, Cheshire, Cornwall, Derbyshire, Devonshire, Dorset, Gloucestershire, Hampshire and Isle of Wight, Lincolnshire (Holland), Oxfordshire, Shropshire, Somerset, Staffordshire, Suffolk, Surrey, Wiltshire, Yorkshire (East Riding), Yorkshire (West Riding), Anglesey and Caernarvon, Carmarthen, Glamorgan, Pembrokeshire and Cardigan, Radnor and Brecon; those in which the hours were reduced were Bedfordshire and Huntingdonshire, Buckinghamshire, Essex, Lincolnshire (Kesteven and Lindsey), Northamptonshire and Soke of Peterborough, Worcestershire; and those in which the minimum wages were increased and the hours also reduced were Cambridgeshire and Isle of Ely and Leicestershire and Rutland.

I am unable to give the number of workers affected by the changes but the aggregate number of male workers in the areas concerned as returned on the Agricultural Schedules for the 4th June last was 399,375.

Oral Answers to Questions — STEAMSHIP "LAURENTIC" (SALVAGED GOLD).

Mr. JOEL: 75.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what use was made of the gold recovered from the liner "Laurentic," by the Admiralty salvage operations; and in what form this has been dealt with in the national accounts?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): The value of the gold recovered before October, 1919, was deducted from the initial gross loss of £4,996,317 and only the net loss of £3,675,750 was charged to the Vote of Credit (see the report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General on the Vote of Credit Appropriation Account, 1918–19). The value of the gold recovered and sold after October, 1919, amounting to £3,632,677, was paid to the Exchequer
as Miscellaneous Revenue; these transactions will be found recorded in the Finance Accounts of the years 1920 to 1924. The actual purchaser of the gold on these occasions was the Government's own Exchange Account.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR DEBTS (LAUSANNE AGREEMENT).

Mr. MABANE: 76.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is proposed to take any steps to ratify the Lausanne Agreement on War Debts; and, if not, whether he can say how the matter of reparations payment now stands, in view Of the fact that, in default of ratification of the Lausanne Convention, the Young Plan still holds the field?

Mr. COOPER: The question of the ratification of the Lausanne Agreement is bound up with the problem of Inter-Allied War Debts as a whole and His Majesty's Government do not consider that it would be desirable to take any action in the matter at present. The situation is meanwhile governed, not by the Young Plan, but by the agreement of 9th July, 1932, entitled "Transitional Measures relating to Germany" (see Command Paper 4126, the "Final Act of the Lausanne Conference," pages 10 and 11). Under this agreement payments in respect of reparations and War Debts are suspended until the Lausanne Agreement comes into force, or failing that, until any one of the Governments concerned notifies that it has decided not to ratify. No such notification having been received, these "Transitional Measures" remain in force.

Mr. MABANE: Do I understand that none of the parties to the Lausanne Agreement have yet taken steps to ratify, and that none has given notice that they do not propose to ratify it?

Mr. COOPER: I think that that is the case.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Prime Minister to state what the business will be to-morrow and on Friday?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): Sufficient progress has been made in Committee on the Betting Bill during the last two days, that it
seems reasonable to expect that the Committee stage will be concluded tonight without an unduly late sitting. On this assumption, the Business will be as follows:
To-morrow (Thursday): Discussion of the Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition which relates to the Private Manufacture of and Trade in Arms.
Friday: Committee and remaining stages of the Poor Law Bill, and of the Dindings Agreement (Approval) Bill [Lords]; Consideration of Motions to approve Additional Import Duties Orders, Nos. 26 to 33 (inclusive), and of the Order relating to the Sheiffdom of Perth and Angus. That Order was published in the Order Paper yesterday and refers to the amalgamation of Sheriffdoms.
On either day, should there be time, other Orders may be taken.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to say whether it is the intention of the Government to take the Third Reading of the Poor Law Bill on Friday?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes. I announced, as the hon. Member will have noticed, the Committee and remaining stages of the Bill.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Does that mean that the Government have no intention of accepting any Amendment to the Poor Law Bill on the Committee stage? Obviously, to proceed with the Third Reading means that no Amendments can be accepted and that there will be no Report stage. Will he not reconsider his decision and wait until he has heard the Debate on Friday, especially in view of the fact that the Minister introducing the Bill said that it was intended to make the law in England the same as the law in Scotland? As the Bill does not do so, will the right hon. Gentleman wait until he hears the Debate on Friday before he makes up his mind that there shall be no Report stage and no alteration in the Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: The phrase "Committee and remaining stages "includes the Report stage, if a Report stage is necessary. If a Report stage be necessary, there will be so much more to
do on Friday. We expect to get the whole programme and will take every step necessary to enable us to get it all.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Are the Government prepared to have an open mind on the Bill or not? They can hardly take the Third Reading of the Bill if they accept Amendments on the Committee stage on that day, and, in view of that fact, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the position and keep an open mind on the Bill until he has heard the Debate?

The PRIME MINISTER: I can assure the hon. Member that the Government will keep an open mind on Friday in listening to the arguments brought forward on the Bill.

Motion made, and Question put,
 That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 245; Noes, 36.

Division No. 388.]
AYES.
[3.50 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Knox, Sir Alfred


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Elmley, Viscount
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Law, Sir Alfred


Aske, Sir Robert William
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Law, Richard K. (Hull. S.W.)


Assheton, Ralph
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Lees-Jones, John


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Leigh, Sir John


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Fermoy, Lord
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Balniel, Lord
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-


Beaumont. Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Flint, Abraham John
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Loftus, Pierce C.


Bernays, Robert
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Fox, Sir Gifford
Lyons, Abraham Montagu


Blindell, James
Ganzoni, Sir John
Mebane, William


Borodale, Viscount
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
MacAndrew, Lieut -Col. C. G. (Partick)


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)


Braithwaite. J. G. (Hillsborough)
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'ri'd. N.)
McKie, John Hamilton


Brass, Captain Sir William
Granville, Edgar
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Magnay, Thomas


Broadbent, Colonel John
Grimston, R. V.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks.,Newb'y)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Browne, Captain A. C.
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Harbord, Arthur
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Harris, Sir Percy
Milne, Charles


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Harvey, George (Lambeth,Kenn'gt'n)
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Carver, Major William H.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)


Castlereagh, Viscount
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col, J. T. C.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Moreing, Adrian C.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth.,S.)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Holdsworth, Herbert
Morrison, William Shepherd


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Moss, Captain H. J.


Christie. James Archibald
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybrldge)
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hopkinson, Austin
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)


Cobb. Sir Cyril
Hornby, Frank
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Horobin, Ian M.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Orr Ewing, I. L.


Colman, N. C. D.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.)
Palmer, Francis Noel


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Patrick, Colin M.


Cooper, A. Duff
Hurd, Sir Percy
Pearson, William G.


Copeland, Ida
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Critchley, Brig.-General A. C.
Iveagh, Countess of
Pike, Cecil F.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Pybus, Sir John


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Jamieson, Douglas
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Dawson, Sir Philip
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Dickie, John P.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Ray, Sir William


Dixey, Arthur C. N.
Jones, Levels (Swansea, West)
Rea, Walter Russell


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Ker, J. Campbell
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Duggan, Hubert John
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Eady, George H.
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Rickards, George William


Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Knight, Holford
Robinson, John Roland


Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Soper, Richard
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Ruggies-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)
Weymouth, Viscount


Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
White, Henry Graham


Salt, Edward W.
Stevenson, James
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Stones, James
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Sutcliffe, Harold
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Wise, Alfred R.


Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)
Thompson, Sir Luke
Womersley, Sir Walter


Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)
Train, John



Smithers, Sir Waldron
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Somervell, Sir Donald
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir George Penny.


Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Parkinson, John Allen


Attlee, Clement Richard
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Banfield, John William
Grundy, Thomas W.
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Thorne, William James


Buchanan, George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Tinker, John Joseph


Cape, Thomas
Kirkwood, David
West, F. R.


Daggar, George
Lawson, John James
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Davies, Stephen Owen
Lunn, William
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Dobbie, William
McEntee, Valentine L.
Wilmot, John


Edwards, Charles
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)



Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Owen, Major Goronwy
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Paling, Wilfred
Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. Groves.


Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — BETTING AND LOTTERIES BILL [Lords]

(Except CLAUSE 1.)

Further considered in Committee. [Progress, 6th November.]

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 20.—(Offences in connection with lotteries.)

4 p.m.

Mr. WISE: I beg to move, in page 17, line 31, to leave out from "distribution" to "any", in line 32.
The effect of this Amendment would be that only those persons who had actually engaged in the distribution or sale of lottery tickets would become liable to the penal Clauses of the Bill. I think it is a reasonable Amendment, because it may well be, and it certainly will be that, in spite of all efforts to suppress such lotteries as the Irish Sweepstake, a very large majority of the people of this country will continue to buy tickets for it, and there is very little doubt also that the number of people who desire to buy tickets will be vastly increased by the prohibition. Therefore, particularly as a little later in the Bill we are to have domiciliary visits from the police to search for lottery tickets in our country, it is possible that during the course of one of these friendly calls from a uniformed constable, even the most innocent of us may be found with half a dozen tickets in our possession. If that is the ease, I presume, under the general procedure which is being adopted in this Bill, the onus of proof will be thrown on the holder of the tickets to show that he is not intending to distribute them, because that is the principle on which, apparently, the Government have been working in all the penal Clauses hitherto passed in this Bill. That is a reversal of the old principle that a man is innocent until he is proved guilty. It will be incumbent upon him to prove his own innocence. In other words, if he is found with half a dozen lottery tickets, he will be haled before the magistrate, who will say to him: "Now will you satisfy me by proving that you were not endeavouring to sell or distribute these half dozen tickets?"
Let us assume that this man has what very many people have in the Irish Sweepstake, namely, 20 tickets. It is a very plausible case that he is intending to sell or distribute them, and if he is not protected by the onus of proof being on the law, which undoubtedly it will not be, he will be liable to prosecution and conviction. I suggest that this is carrying police work a little too far. This Amendment, which is a very simple one, and, I think, a very reasonable one, merely avoids that difficulty, and does ensure that only those persons who are actually caught in the act of selling or distributing lottery tickets will be convicted of an offence. I do not believe that there is anyone on any side of the Committee who really in his heart of hearts can think that that is unreasonable. It is not asking a great concession from the Government, and I hope that they will see their way to make this first concession to their own supporters.

4.5 p.m.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: I beg to support the Amendment. The more we look at this Bill, the more it appears to be a Bill to establish Star Chamber inquisition once more in this country with regard to lotteries. There is to be domiciliary search, and everything is presumed against the person. Apparently it is intended, although I think a man may be got at, that a person holding a ticket shall not be liable to these savage penalties which are out of all proportion to the offence. But how are the authorities to know? For instance, in my own case, I have got on my library table at this moment a book of Irish lottery tickets. I have not purchased them. I have not asked for them to be sent to me. They were sent to me by some unknown person. There they are on my table. Suppose somebody comes in who has a "down" on me for any reason and sees these tickets. The Home Secretary might be calling. He might want a cup of tea. I will not suggest that; I withdraw it. The Home Secretary is responsible in his office for this Bill, but he would not personally carry it out. I give him credit for better intention. But there is a case in point. Am I going to be prosecuted because I have in my possession these Irish sweepstake tickets?

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: You have a complete answer.

Sir W. DAVISON: I shall be presumed to have them for sale, unless I can show to the contrary. I say that the words in question are objectless unless some form of inquisition is intended.

4.8 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): I think that the position is not understood by the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment or the hon. Member who has just spoken. In the first place, a search of this kind cannot be made unless it is granted by a magistrate, who has to be satisfied that there is reasonable ground to suppose that there exists on premises the distribution of propaganda or tickets on a large scale. If we were to accept the Amendment as proposed, it would prevent the police from taking further steps in a case where they go into premises, after getting a warrant from a magistrate, and find, say, 10,000 or 5,000 tickets. That, I am quite sure, is not what is contemplated. It is clear that this is not an inquisition on a private individual, but an endeavour to get at those who propagate, on a large scale, the distribution of these tickets. In the circumstances, I would ask the Committee not to accept the Amendment.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say on whom lies the onus of proving the purpose for which the tickets are in a man's possession? Does the onus lie on the Crown or on the individual?

4.10 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): In this case the onus would be on the prosecution to prove the purpose.

Sir W. DAVISON: The word "presumed" is used frequently in the Bill?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: There is a latter Sub-section in this Clause which does provide for a presumption that possession is for the purpose of sale. That can be dealt with when we come to it. In this case the prosecution must prove the purpose. If the prosecution proved mere possession, they would not succeed in proving their case.

Major COLFOX: May I ask a question? Where in the Bill is there anything about having a large number of tickets or doing
this on a large scale? So far as I can see, there is nothing in the Bill to that effect.

4.11 p.m.

Mr. PIKE: Sub-section (4) says:
He shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, to have brought the matter in question into Great Britain for the purpose of sale or distribution.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): I think that we had better deal with Sub-section (4) when we come to it.

Mr. PIKE: It has reference to the Amendment we are now discussing, because the same words appear in the Amendment—for sale or distribution. Might I ask, in view of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, if, for instance, I purchased 50 tickets in the Irish Sweepstake, one for myself and 49 for distribution to friends without charge, would I be guilty of a contravention of the Act?

Major COLFOX: Might I have an answer to my question?

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND- TROYTE: There is not a word in the Clause about tickets on a large scale. It says distinctly "any tickets." Therefore, if there is one ticket, and certainly two, in a man's possession, there would be a prosecution.

4.12 p.m.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: The Home Secretary, presumably, based himself on the assumption that these things would be found in somebody's house. I come to this House every morning to take up my letters, and I put them in my pocket. It is a most mixed bag of letters, such as Members get, and I have, in fact, received lottery tickets run by a Conservative club in South Croydon in which I won a goose and a bottle of whisky last Christmas. That is merely in passing. If I pull out these letters while passing a policeman on my way to the office, and he sees some of these tickets in my possession, although there is no intention on my part, obviously, to sell or distribute them, the tacit assumption would be that I am going to distribute them, and I do not think my evidence alone would be of much value unless there were some corroboration.

4.14 p.m.

Mr. J. JONES: I happen to have a book of these tickets on me now, and
they are going to be sold by me. If at the end of the time when the tickets expire, I have not sold the lot, I shall give them away. It is all for the good of the cause. [An HON. MEMBER: "Which cause?"] The cause of Socialism. I want the Committee to realise the position. There are numbers of working men who take tickets for various lotteries and sweepstakes. I should have met one of them here this afternoon so that he could hear what you think of their morality, but this man has been kept at work at the docks, and has telegraphed to me to say that he is not able to attend to hear the Debate. That man, it is suggested, is a potential criminal, because he has a few tickets to sell for some cause in which he may be interested. I remember the Debate here on sedition, and the very thing Members are opposing now was supported then. They said that people ought to be searched because they thought they were in possession of subversive pamphlets. How can hon. and right hon. Members reverse their opinions in a week? If it is wrong to have certain pamphlets in your possession how can they now say that if a man has a book of sweepstake tickets upon him he is a potential criminal?

Mr. WISE: Does not the hon. Member recognise any difference between treason and lotteries?

Mr. JONES: A lottery is treason to your family, according to some hon. Members you are spending money on things which you cannot afford and which do not matter. I stand for the right of a workman, if he wants, to be able to buy a ticket. My tickets only cost 3d. but they guarantee a Christmas dinner to the winner, and you cannot get a Christmas dinner for less than 3d. It is no use arguing about the morality of these things. Whether you agree or do not they will go on in spite of you, and to try and make the law so tight that people canot evade it is a useless exercise. You should be reasonable in these matters. The man who sent me the telegram saying that he could not attend the debate is a dock labourer, and every time there is an Irish sweep he gets a book of tickets. He makes nothing out of them for himself, but the fact that he is in the possession of a book of tickets makes him a criminal. Is that right? It is bringing Star Chamber methods into this country,
any I shall support any Amendment which enables us to say that we are not screwing the people too much. This kind of business must stop sometime or other, otherwise there will be a revolt against it among the common people.

4.18 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The decision which the Committee took last night disposes once and for all of the question of a national lottery, and, therefore, I presume steps will be taken to deal with the situation created by that decision. I want to ask the Solicitor-General whether the powers already possessed to prevent either the printing, selling, distribution or advertising for sale of these tickets will not cover the case? If there is a possibility involving this search then in certain circumstances it might be possible that a search will take place merely because of someone's bad temper or prejudice, and I am sure the Home. Secretary does not desire that. I hope he will give us an illustration as to the kind of thing he has in mind, which will satisfy us that the powers already possessed, without these offending words, will not meet the situation.

4.20 p.m.

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: May I put again a question which was put a moment or two ago? Many of us have been reluctant to oppose the Government on this Sub-section, and would be reassured if the right hon. Gentleman could show us the provision in the Bill which bears out what he has said. Paragraph (b) enables proceedings to be taken against people who possess tickets as he says on a large scale, say 5,000, with the intention of selling. If the Home Secretary can show us any provision which justifies that statement some of our fears will be removed.

4.21 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: The Committee must decide the matter in view of the decision which was taken last night. It is obvious that there are certain people who deliberately will set themselves out to defeat the decision which the House then took. It may come to the knowledge of the authorities that at certain places agents are acting in defiance of the law, it may be in large or medium quantities of tickets, I do not specify the amount, but they are deliberately using
their premises for the purpose of selling or distributing these things broadcast and thus nullifying the decision which Parliament has taken. If that information comes to the officer responsible he has to go in the first instance to a magistrate and put the information before him, and the magistrate, taking all circumstances into account, may think it right to issue a search warrant. The officer then makes his search, and whether he finds or does not find what he anticipates is a matter which must be subsequently decided. If the Amendment were accepted it would render such action impossible, and, in view of the experience of those who have handled this problem, and in order to make the Clause effective, I must ask the Committee to give us this power.

Sir W. DAVISON: The right hon. Gentleman has said that the object of the Government is to prevent large numbers, or considerable numbers, of tickets being distributed. Will he agree to put in after the word "possession" the words "not less than 100 tickets"?

Sir J. GILMOUR indicated dissent.

Sir W. DAVISON: Then the whole thing is specious. That is a large number, other wise you are going to try and find the individual who has tickets.

4.24 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think the Home Secretary must carry the matter a little further, and be a little more precise. He has made a very important statement. He has said, quite plainly, that the Government did not intend to disturb those with merely a few tickets in their possession; that they were out to deal with the wholesale merchant who has large supplies, or medium supplies, of tickets in his possession. I thought that was satisfactory, but there is nothing of it in the Bill, and if the right hon. Gentleman would insert words in the Bill giving effect to his purpose it would remove the anxieties which many people feel on this point. I hope the Home Secretary is not going to suppose that just because during the passage of the Bill he makes a well-meaning and good-humoured speech pointing out that everything is easy, no difficulties will arise, and that that is a sufficient protection for His Majesty's lieges against words which
are actually in the Act of Parliament. Experience shows that if there are breaches of the law they are not always treated in such a friendly, smooth, tolerant and considerate atmosphere as that which the right hon. Gentleman outlined in his statement. The right hon. Gentleman owes it to the Committee to put in words, or take from us a form of words, which will make clear the distinction between the casual possession of a few tickets and a deliberate importation of large quantities of tickets with a view of defeating the purpose of the Bill.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I understand that lotteries are illegal under the present law—

Mr. J. JONES: Not church bazaars.

Mr. FOOT: When we come to church bazaars I should like to see the same law applied.

Mr. JONES: You will not get much chance.

Mr. FOOT: Can the Solicitor-General tell us whether under the existing law it would be an offence for me to have in my possession for the purposes of sale or distribution tickets relating to a lottery? Is it not a fact that the Clause does not extend the existing law at all?

4.27 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The Home Secretary has spoken as if the Clause relates solely to illegal lotteries. The words in the Clause are:
Subject to the provisions of this Section every person who in connection with any lottery promoted or proposed to he promoted either in Great Britain or elsewhere.
If you contemplate the promotion of a lottery in Great Britain you are contemplating something which is illegal, but which under Clause 2 the right hon. Gentleman is legalising. There can be private lotteries. The lottery under which I was successful last Christmas will promote another lottery this Christmas and I shall get a book of tickets, which will be handed to me. That is a book of tickets in a legal lottery if the Bill becomes law. But if I have that book in my possession and I am trying to sell any ticket then if I understand Clause 22 I am committing an offence in selling a ticket in an illegal lottery. The Home Secretary talked about a search warrant
and a special number of tickets. If the Government want to catch the wholesaler they should catch him without catching the innocent citizen.

Colonel GRETTON: The Home Secretary has justified the Clause and resisted the Amendment on something which is riot at present in the Bill. As the Bill stands two or three lottery tickets will make a person guilty of an offence, but at the same time the Home Secretary says that he wants to get at the wholesale people. He has not offered us the slightest information as to what he regards as the wholesale people, while the little man may be prosecuted for having in his possession two or three tickets which he is not proposing to distribute or sell. The Committee should put into the Bill what it means, and the Government ought to put in what they mean.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: When we are dealing with the matter of lotteries we should lay down the law in such a way as to make it clear to the public outside. As the Bill stands the Government are going to legalise certain smaller lotteries and to make the law clear. That is a thing which will bring a considerable amount of satisfaction. Then the Government are going to try. to stop the distribution of tickets in certain lotteries, such as the Irish Sweepstake lottery. I am concerned in this way; I do not think the Home Secretary or anyone else wants to prosecute the odd person who has an odd book of tickets, but it does seem to me that there is some step between the person who has a considerable number of tickets for sale and, say, the hon. Member opposite who has one book of tickets sent to him by accident from some unknown person.
I will give a case of which I heard the other day. Someone's motor driver by the sale of lottery tickets made something over £100 a year. There were two tickets in each book which were his without any payment being made for them. It seems to me that he is the kind of individual the Government want to stop, exactly as they would stop the man who has an office for the sale of tickets. Unless we make the law more watertight we shall have very awkward questions coming up again. As there is considerable doubt about the matter I suggest that the Home Secretary should
go into the whole question between now and the Report stage, and see whether it is not possible to frame the law in such a way that, first of all, it is possible to get at those who intend to sell tickets on a considerable scale, and, secondly, so that there is no danger of infringement of the right of a private individual to have a small book of tickets in his pocket. We do not want to be dependent on the good will of a magistrate or a Home Secretary. We happen to have a very good Home Secretary now, but three or four years ago we had a very bad one, and the law should not be left in such a lax position that we do not know as ordinary citizens where we are.

4.35 p.m.

Major COLFOX: It seems to me that the Home Secretary and the Government are dealing with this problem of lotteries in an entirely wrong way. One of their main contentions in introducing this Bill and pressing it forward is that they are going to clear up the position as it exists to-day. It is obvious to anyone who reads these few lines of the Bill that they are merely increasing the difficulties and perplexities. The Home Secretary in his usual genial way has made a speech in support of his point of view against the Amendment. It was a speech containing a very definite statement that his object and the object of the Government is not to penalise anyone with just a few tickets. But the Bill does not say that; the Bill talks about distributing any tickets. That is entirely at variance with what the Home Secretary has said. My right hon. Friend talked about doing a thing on a large scale, on wholesale lines. Let him put the gist of his speech into the wording of the Bill. I urge him most strongly to reconsider this matter most carefully and to bring it into line with what he has said. It is no use whatever him getting up and making speeches on this or any other subject if he is not prepared to implement his words in the Bill. We all admire and respect and like the right hon. Gentleman, but unless he does what he says is his intention, while our admiration will remain as great our respect will not be as unbounded as it has been. If he cannot do anything at this moment I urge him to give an undertaking that before the Report stage he will implement his own promise and speech.

4.38 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Perhaps it would be convenient if I answered the questions that have been put to me. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) stated, quite correctly, of course, that at the moment all lotteries are illegal, with the possible exception of those of the Art Unions, which have statutory permission. It follows that under our existing law the sale of a single lottery ticket is an offence. The hon. Gentleman also asked whether under the existing law it was an offence to have illegal lottery tickets in one's possession for the purpose of sale or distribution. I am sorry to say that under our existing law that point may not be quite clear. It is completely clear under the Bill. But I think probably it is not an offence. Apparently it has never been tested in the courts. I am not myself a great expert on criminal law. It might be suggested that such action was aiding or abetting the commission of an offence.

Mr. CHURCHILL: You are creating a new offence.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: We are seeking to do what the House has decided should be done, namely, taking steps for properly enforcing the law against such lotteries as the House has decided are illegal. Let me deal also with the question put to me by the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams). I think the answer is to be found in Sub-section (2) of this Clause. The hon. Member made the point of someone who has tickets in a legal lottery and then wanted to sell them or distribute them. I think that matter arises under Sub-section (2) which says:
In any proceedings instituted under the preceding subsection it shall be a defence to prove that the lottery to which the proceedings relate was such a lottery as is declared by any subsequent section of this Part of this Act not to be an unlawful lottery …
That covers the hon. Member's point. Let me say a few words about the cases that are put with regard to a single ticket and so on. My Tight hon. Friend the Home Secretary stated that this Subsection was intended to cover the larger cases. Nothing is easier, when any offence is created, than to give instances or circumstances in which a prosecution
would be ridiculous. There is a speed limit of 30 miles an hour in Oxford and therefore a man commits a criminal offence if he travels at 30 miles and I furlong per hour. Those responsible for the administration of the law would not make themselves ridiculous by launching prosecutions in cases where the turpitude against which the Act is directed does not really exist.
As a matter of legal language it is very difficult to insert such words as a large number or a considerable number; by such an Amendment there would be introduced a very indeterminate phrase which might be the subject of argument in every case. But although the letter of the law had been overstepped, there may be no element of culpability to justify those responsible for administering the law in instituting a prosecution. If the words proposed to be omitted were left out of the Clause, there would be a very serious hole in the powers that are necessary to deal with the prevention of illegal lotteries. Those who conduct these lotteries would take every precaution to see that the actual sales were conducted in secret, and unless the powers provided in the words under discussion existed, the purpose of the Clause would be crippled.

4.42 p.m.

Sir W. DAVISON: The Solicitor-General has given an instance of a speed limit and spoken of the difficulty of deciding between 30 miles an hour and 30 miles one furlong per hour. But there is no difficulty at all in this Clause. Will he put in 30 tickets if not 100? That would be something. His analogy was absurd, and did no credit to the intelligence of the Committee. The law says that a motor-car speed in certain areas shall not exceed 30 miles an hour. If this Clause said "shall not exceed 30 tickets," that might be hard lines on the man with 31 tickets, but to say that the analogy of the speed limit was comparable is absurd. What we object to is that the man with one ticket may be prosecuted. The Home Secretary in the kindness of his heart says he does not mean the fellow who has only one ticket. But a judge has to decide on the words of the Act, not on the words of the Home Secretary.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. DAVID MASON: The hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) is very active on this subject. We know he is in favour of lotteries, and that explains why he is active in trying to find fault with the Bill. The Clause is clear to the common sense of the Committee as a whole, and the Division Lobby will show that very soon. Why the hon. Member for South Kensington should go over the ground again and again and ask the Government to put in a certain figure, I cannot say. The magistrate will exercise his discretion in granting or not granting a search warrant. He will grant a warrant only if convinced that there is a real case of turpitude. The hon. Member for South Kensington is very ingenuous. He is supported by another very ingenuous Member, the right hon. Member for Epping. The right hon. Gentleman, an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported an Amendment last night in favour of lotteries for the purpose of helping with the National Debt, although he disclaimed that intention. I mention that incidentally to show the character of the opposition to the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman and of the hon. Member for South Kensington.
These hon. Gentlemen, having been soundly beaten by the common sense of the Committee last night, come here again to-day and take up time by going over the same ground again and again, trying to get the Home Secretary and the Solicitor-General to put a specific figure in the Bill. I hope that the Home Secretary and the Solicitor-General will do nothing of the kind. It is self-evident that we must trust to the common sense of the magistrates. It would be easy to go through this Bill and by comparing one part with another, to find certain discrepancies. Even I might emulate the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping in finding such discrepancies, but we expect something better from him. He has played a great part in Parliament; he has sat on that Front Bench but he comes here this afternoon and uses the great abilities of which he is undoubtedly possessed, to fiddle about and split hairs on a matter of this kind and take up time—

Mr. PIKE: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member within the Rules of
Procedure in casting innuendoes against another Member instead of dealing with the Amendment?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I did not hear the hon. Member cast any innuendoes.

Mr. MASON: I imagine that you Mr. Deputy-Chairman are quite capable of keeping order without the assistance of the hon. Member. I am not making any innuendoes. I am making definite assertions and I think I can see by his face that the right hon. Gentleman himself admits that they are true. Otherwise he is quite capable of defending himself and he does not require the assistance of the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Pike). I hope that the Home Secretary and the Solicitor-General will adhere to the position which they have taken up and I am sure that the common sense of the great majority of the Committee will support them in doing so.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. HANNON: I do not think that the Home Secretary and the Solicitor-General are being quite fair to the Committee. The Home Secretary in a very charming statement as to the circumstances in which a prosecution might arise if this Bill becomes law, spoke of "a large number" or "a considerable number." The Committee are entitled to have words in the Bill which will influence the decision of a magistrate in a particular case coming before him. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping put this point very forcibly to the Home Secretary and I do not think that the explanation given by the Solicitor-General, however delightfully worded, was satisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman said that we were by this Clause creating a new crime. We ought not to legislate for the manufacture of criminals. Our function is to suppress crime and we ought not to agree to any provision which is open to the objection which the right hon. Gentleman has indicated. Unless there are words in the Clause defining the limits within which a prosecution can arise, the Bill will be unfair to the public. Those of us who sit on these benches and who share the view I have expressed are doing our best to help the Home Secretary with this Bill. [HON. MEMBERS "Oh."] Certainly we are, but we do not want to be parties to the passing
of a Measure which in our judgment will lead to continuous prosecutions and exasperation in the magistrates courts. I hope that before the Report Stage some form of words will be found which will make this matter more precise in the Bill.

4.49 p.m.

Mr. J. JONES: It is remarkable to observe the difference between the speeches which were made from these benches last week and those to which we are listening to-day. I am opposed to a lot of the Clauses of this Bill, but I was also opposed to the Incitement to Disaffection Bill, and I can therefore claim to be consistent. Hon. Members opposite are putting forward an Amendment which is, I think, reasonable. I have already sold four tickets and I hope that before the House rises to-night I shall have sold the rest. This Clause as it stands would only make criminality more possible by saying in effect that the magistrate has the right to decide when a crime is being committed in this way. I thought that it was the law which laid down the nature of the crime. I thought Parliament existed for the purpose of laying down the conditions in which a crime is being committed or about to be committed. Surely a magistrate is not to be regarded as if he were an emperor in his own right. I happen to be a magistrate myself and I can see what would happen to the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) if he came before me at Stratford. He would go down straight off the reel, without the option.
Legislation ought to guarantee equal rights to all citizens. Now with regard to these tickets I have had some experience. I have been in it myself as a buyer of tickets and I know that there are firms of bookmakers who take these tickets wholesale and have people going about selling them on commission. But the man at the head of the show never gets into trouble. If there are prosecutions the person prosecuted will be the poor unfortunate, perhaps an unemployed workman, who is trying to sell the tickets on commission. He will be found committing this illegal act and the other chap will immediately disappear from the scene. It will be Phil Garlic who will go through the mill. I do not be-
lieve in that kind of thing. I say that you should make it difficult for the wholesaler to deal in the tickets by fixing a minimum number, a number which will not enable him to make a profit worth while. I had 30 tickets and I have sold four and I have 26 left. Why not make the minimum number 30. We have heard of 30 pieces of silver in history.
At present many bookmakers or syndicates run quite a big business in these tickets. Their agents go to Dublin and buy as many as 10,000 tickets at a time and those tickets are distributed in the intervals between one sweepstake and another. I ask the Home Secretary, realising that situation, to consider between now and the Report stage whether the number of tickets which any person is allowed to have should not be limited to 30 or 25 if you like. That would place a restriction upon wholesale dealing in tickets because it would prevent these people from making considerable profit by exploiting the public as they do under the present method. It may be said that the Government ought not to admit the principle and that people would still have the opportunity of having one ticket occasionally but I suggest that that is no good. I have these 30 tickets and I suppose if this Bill were law I should be brought up for it—not that I care whether I am brought up or not because I have been there before and I can go there again. But I ask the Home Secretary seriously to consider placing a reasonable limit on the number of tickets.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I should be very sorry indeed if any heat were to be imported into this discussion, and I hope that the Government will not allow their naturally mild disposition to be inflamed by the Berserk fury of their Liberal allies. I only rise for the purpose of pointing out that the Home Secretary, wishing to be helpful and agreeable and to smooth the path of this business, has actually put us in a rather difficult position—and himself also. He commended this Clause to the Committee by pointing out that it was never intended to apply it to any small scale or accidental operation but only to large and wholesale—though that was not his word—undertakings. But neither he nor the learned Solicitor-General has been able to point—and they certainly would have
pointed with great acumen to any such provision if they had known of it—to anything in the Bill whereby the slightest effect is given to the pious and to a certain extent genial and reassuring sentiments uttered by the Home Secretary.
I do not think that the matter ought to end there. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, whose disposition has always endeared him to his fellow-Members, would not wish to gain votes for his proposal by arousing with his soothing eloquence hopes which on closer examination are found to be disappointed by the harsh, rigid, legal pedantry of his Bill. I should be sorry to have to occupy the time of the Committee with a Division, although it may be necessary to do so. I venture to make a suggestion, and, in doing so, I speak only for myself as a Member of the House attending to my duties in the House to-day, as I propose to do in the manner which seems to me fit and proper, without even asking the permission of hon. Gentlemen opposite. It seems to me that the Home Secretary might meet us on this matter, or at any rate go some way towards implementing the clear expression which he has given of his wish, if, for instance, he were willing to insert in line 32 the word "organised" so that the Clause would read:
or has in his possession for the purpose of organised sale or distribution.
That would clearly draw the line between eases of the kind which if this legislation is to be enforced should certainly be. prosecuted, and the large number of petty derelictions from the strict course of civic conduct which we know occur continuously all over the country. I do not put this suggestion forward in order to embarrass my right hon. Friend in the course of business, but it seems to me that if he promised to consider such a suggestion before the Report stage, it might make it worth while for my hon. Friends not to press the matter further at this stage. I do not ask my right hon. Friend to put in such a word this afternoon. I only ask him to promise that the point will be considered before the Report stage, and if possible met. If he can do so, I think that would take some of the edge off this particular proposal.

4.59 p.m.

Sir WILLIAM WAYLAND: I wish to ask the Home Secretary whether it is
not a recognised principle that it is useless for the House of Commons to pass laws which it cannot enforce. In regard to the question of the distribution of these tickets, as has been stated, there is not only the one method referred to but many other means of distribution, and I am certain that if this Clause is passed as it now appears in the Bill it will never be possible to enforce it. No doubt the chief object of the Home Secretary is the suppression in this country of the sale of tickets for the Irish Sweepstake. I do not suppose that this provision would have appeared in the Bill at all had the Irish Sweepstake not been in existence. But the right. hon. Gentleman has to think also of the thousands of sweepstakes which are conducted yearly, monthly, weekly, almost hourly, in this country, and not of the Irish Sweepstake alone. I hope that he will give way on this point. Under the law as it stands, the Solicitor-General has said that it is illegal, and we know that it is illegal, to hold a lottery or sweepstake, but millions of lotteries and sweepstakes have been held during the last 50 years.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is now making a Second Reading speech on lotteries.

Sir W. WAYLAND: I will finish by saying again that if we pass this Clause, it will be impossible, owing to popular opinion, to enforce the law.

5.0 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: The right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) and other Members have appealed to me to reconsider this problem. The Committee, of course, is seeking to prevent large lotteries, and whatever differences of opinion there may be on the subject, the House has decided in one direction. It is essential, if we are to do that, that we should have certain powers, and all that I have said is that we are asking for powers under which the Executive will have to go, in the first instance, to a magistrate and to convince the magistrate that they have sufficient grounds to suspect that in certain premises or in certain circumstances this kind of thing, which we all know is going on and which this House now directs us to stop, is in fact going on. It is essential that we should have reasonable powers.
I am always willing to try to meet the general views of the Committee, and the right hon. Gentleman suggests the word "organised." I must not be taken by the Committee as accepting that particular word or any word. I will say, quite frankly, that I have looked at this question with my advisers with great care and with knowledge of the difficulties which we have had to face in order to try to carry out the existing law, and it is because of the difficulty of finding words which will allay the fears of this, that, and the other person, that after long consideration we have introduced the Bill in its present form, but I am prepared to consider the proposition afresh between now and the Report stage, as long as it is clear that I am not committing myself to accept this particular word or indeed any word. I must be frank in the matter, so that there may be no idea that I am promising to accept anything, but I am prepared again to consult my advisers on the question.

5.2 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think we really are indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for the tone and temper in which he has dealt with this matter, and I am certain, from long experience—almost one of the longest—that the progress of Bills is often expedited by that kind of treatment on the part of a Minister. The right hon. Gentleman has not committed himself to anything definite, nor do I think it reasonable to ask the Government to commit themselves on the spur of the moment. They must naturally look over the matter and see how it affects the layout of the Bill and what consequential reactions there may be, but there is a Report stage prescribed by Parliament, and on the Report stage the right hon. Gentleman will make a further statement and will make it, as I understand, with the desire to meet the views that have been expressed, if it be possible to do so without stultifying his legislation. Such an undertaking from the right hon. Gentleman will be carried out not only in the letter but in the spirit, and in all these circumstances I must say, on this particular point, that I think we have been treated with consideration.

Mr. WISE: In view of the very generous attitude of the Home Secretary,
for which both myself and my hon. friends are extremely grateful, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.5 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 17, line 35, after "of," to insert "publication or."
The Amendment is to secure that if a person has in his possession for publication, as well as if he has it for distribution, any lottery advertisement and so on, it should be an offence in the circumstances set forth in this Sub-section.

Amendment agreed to.

5.6 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 17, line 37, to leave out paragraph (c ii).
I am moving this Amendment in the absence of the hon. Members for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) and Stroud (Mr. Perkins), in whose names, as well as in my own, the Amendment stands, as neither of them could be here at this time to move it. This is an Amendment moved partly in the interests of a vested interest and partly in a very definite public interest. The vested interest is that of the Newspaper Society, with which personally I have no connection at all, but of which the hon. Member for Sunderland was, I think, president last year, if he is not this year. He tells me that the Press of this country are gravely perturbed at the new principle involved in this paragraph. I think I am right in saying that in this country we have no Press law in the sense that a Press law is understood in. other countries. The restrictions on the freedom of the Press are few. The first is the law of copyright, with which the hon. and gallant Member for Hexham (Colonel Clifton Brown) was not too familiar the other day. The next are the restrictions imposed upon the publication of indecent matter, the restrictions on the publication of matter likely to lead to a breach of the peace, or seditious matter, next the law of libel, and lastly the Measure promoted by the then hon. Member for Aston, Sir Evelyn Cecil, who now bears another name in another place, under which newspapers were prohibited from publishing what was obviously a too popular amount of salacious details in connection with
divorce cases. Apart from that, we have no Press law in this country, and those restrictions—

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I do not know if the hon. Member is aware that the Commissioners referred to this matter and stated, on page 142, that notices relating to foreign or illegal lotteries which are of the nature of advertisements are prohibited under the Lotteries Act, 1823.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I was not talking about advertisements, which are paid-for stuff. There is a vast difference between advertisements and ordinary things in a newspaper.

Mr. FOOT: They made no distinction.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Obviously, they were considering advertised matter, but I am considering news. I can see why the Home Secretary is anxious to have this paragraph in the Bill. These people in Ireland are raking away from us each year as much as they ought to be paying us in respect of the land annuities, and on economic grounds, without any consideration of morals at all, many of us would like to stop that. One of the reasons which stimulated the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) in moving his Amendment last night was the economic reason, not merely the social reason. The Home Secretary considers that this is necessary as one of his devices to prevent the continued success in this country of the Irish lottery. My own belief is that the only way to stop that lottery effectively in this country is to provide an alternative, and that is one of the reasons why I voted as I did last night. But we are now proposing to say to the newspapers that they shall not be permitted to publish a fact. If, on some day before the next Derby, there is a draw in Dublin, the fact that that draw has taken place, which everybody in Ireland knows, can be published in every country in the world. The fact is not in itself seditious, demoralising, or indecent, but if this Bill becomes law, to publish that fact becomes a crime.
That is an appalling invasion of the freedom of the dissemination of news, and I do not object to its being applied in this case. If I could get all the newspapers to agree not to do it, I should rejoice. It is not that I want this news published, but I am concerned with what
the newspapers, at whose request I understand my hon. Friend put this Amendment down, are concerned with—this invasion of what we have regarded as a fundamental principle in this country for many years past, namely, the right, certainly in times of peace—there must be restrictions if ever we are unfortunately at war—to publish bare facts. If this paragraph remains in the Bill, it becomes an offence to state a fact.
If, by some mysterious chance, the hon. and eloquent Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) became the possessor of a ten shilling ticket in the next Irish sweepstake, and if, owing to the fact that he is a magistrate, he was not spotted and was ultimately successful, he would naturally rejoice if the newspapers of this country were prohibited from publishing the fact that he had become the possessor of £30,000, because his constituents in Silvertown would not be aware of the fact and, therefore, would not be as pressing in their attentions as otherwise they might.

Mr. J. JONES: I should tell them.

Mr. WILLIAMS: But if any newspaper reported the hon. Member's speech on that occasion, announcing the fact that he was the winner of £30,000, they would have committed a crime.

Mr. JONES: They would deserve it.

Mr. WILLIAMS: It seems to me a dangerous invasion of the liberty of the Press. It is only a small invasion, but it may be a beginning. There are people agitating in this country who have no belief in liberty, some on the right and some on the left, but whether Fascists at one end or Communists at the other—and I have no respect for either—both of them in fundamental principles deny that liberty in which the bulk of us in this country believe; and here we are invading liberty in one of the most dangerous directions possible. I think that before these words become incorporated in the Bill, we should all be deliberately conscious of what we are doing, namely, for the first time saying that an event which has happened, an event which is not in itself indecent or criminal where it is happening, should be regarded as something which the Press of this land must not state. I can get up on the public platform and announce that the hon. Member for Silvertown has been success-
ful, but if that announcement is reproduced in any newspaper, it will be an offence. I can publish it in this House, and it can be reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT—

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Crookshank): That is untrue.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I hear the Under-Secretary of State say that that is untrue, and I am glad he has said that, because if it is untrue, I hope he will get up as soon as may be and show where it is untrue. The paragraph says that it is illegal to print, publish, or distribute
any matter descriptive of the drawing or intended drawing of the lottery, or any list (whether complete or not) of prize winners or winning tickets in the lottery.
An announcement that the hon. Member for Silvertown has won a prize is a list which is not complete. He is a list by himself. Whether complete or not, the announcement of at least two winners constitutes a list, if one does not, and I would ask the Committee to give very grave consideration before sanctioning this proposal and to press upon the Home Secretary the necessity of safeguarding he powers he desires to have in such a way that we do not create a precedent dangerous to the future of our liberties.

Sir JOHN PYBUS: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down may I ask him a question? I understand him to say that he and his friends are speaking on behalf of the Press. If that were so, it would have a very considerable influence on the Committee, but will he say for which organisation he is speaking? The Committee has a right to know.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am personally not speaking on behalf of any organisation of the Press. The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey), at whose request I moved this Amendment, was, I think, President of the Newspaper Society last year. He is in close touch with the bulk of the people who print newspapers in the country, and he told me that the newspapers—he did not specify which—did not wish words of this kind to go into an Act of Parliament without their attitude being set on record. They were not concerned with the Irish sweepstake, but with words going into an Act of Parliament setting up the principle that
the publication of a fact was in itself an illegal act.

Viscountess ASTOR: It is important that we should know what newspapers they are. It is dangerous to say that you are speaking on behalf of newspapers and not say which newspapers they are. There are newspapers and newspapers.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I understand that the hon. Member at whose request I have spoken was the President of the Newspaper Society, to which every newspaper in the provinces belongs. I am not certain whether he was speaking on behalf of the London Press. At any rate, all the decent papers in the country belong to that organisation. Whether he was authorised to speak on behalf of the organisation or of the "Observer" I do not know, and do not care.

Viscountess ASTOR: Was he authorised to speak for them?

5.18 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I hope the Home Secretary will give the Government point of view before the Debate goes on long, because we find ourselves in an awkward position as the result of what has happened this afternoon. We decided last night, rightly or wrongly, that national lotteries should be illegal. We then sought to lay down the conditions whereby the Government shall be permitted to render them illegal in fact as well as in theory. The right hon. Gentleman, therefore, proceeds to make the sale, distribution, and so forth, of tickets illegal. He also in paragraph (c, ii) of this Clause suggests that it shall become an offence if newspapers publish lists of prize winners. That is a point which the Committee has now reached. While it becomes an offence to sell tickets, it is no offence to purchase tickets.

Sir W. DAVISON: On a point of Order. This Amendment does not deal with the sale of tickets.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I fail to see how the hon. Member relates what he is saying to the Amendment.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: If there is to be no sale or purchase of tickets there will be no point in newspapers publishing lists of prize winners, for the two things are one and indivisible. The point I am making is that if the law is to be carried
out as the Home Secretary wishes it should be carried out, there will not only not be sales but there will not be 'purchases. If there are no purchasers of tickets, there will be no point in publishing results.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: There is nothing in the Bill to make it illegal for the hon. Member or myself to purchase a ticket in the Irish Sweepstake if we care to write to somebody and ask them to buy a ticket. That will be legal, but if we publish the fact it will be illegal.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: If the hon. Member had done me the justice of listening to me, he would have heard that that is exactly what I intended to convey to the Committee. While it is an offence to sell tickets, it is not an offence to purchase them, but as the organisation of a lottery is illegal according to last night's decision, we must assume, if the law be carried out, that tickets will be neither sold nor purchased.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: It is legal under the law of the Irish Free State to conduct a lottery. It will be legal if this Bill becomes law to, purchase a ticket, but it will be illegal to announce the fact if one succeeds in a foreign lottery.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member must know that the number of tickets that will be purchased individually direct from Ireland will be so infinitesimal as to be of no value to newspaper proprietors in printing partial or full lists. It seems to me that the omission of this paragraph will, unless the Home Secretary is very careful lead us up the garden, and the decision of last night will be null and void. I should hate to create precedents which meant that newspapers would be informed what they can or cannot publish. No hon. Member desires precedents and more and more offences, but the hon. Member who has moved this Amendment did not object to supporting a Bill in the House last Friday which creates a new offence. That is by the way, however. It happened four days since and political memories are very short. I advise the Home Secretary to be very careful before he whittles down this Clause, unless he intends to undo the decision that was taken last night. The Committee must do one thing or another: either lotteries must be permitted or they must be prohibited. If
they are permitted, so much the better or so much the worse socially and otherwise. If they are prohibited, at least the anomalies that appear to be growing already in the first few lines of the Clause ought not to be multiplied.

5.23 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: Perhaps it may be desirable that I should state the position as I understand it. It is at present unlawful under the Lotteries Act of 1836 to print or publish any advertisement or other notice of or relating to the drawing or intended drawing of a lottery. The only addition to the existing law made by this paragraph of Clause 20 is that it makes it clear that it is an offence to publish any list of prize winners. If hon. Members who have been interested in this problem have taken the trouble to read the report of the Royal Commission dealing with this matter, they will see that, after hearing all the evidence, the Commission came to a clear decision that experience had shown, as in the case of the Irish Sweepstake, that the publication of lists of winners was a direct incentive to other people to go in for the same kind of thing. If that be so—and I think it is common sense—it is obvious, if the Committee means to implement what we decided last night, that we must prohibit the publication and the flaunting before the public of an incentive to go in for a thing in which they see there are great possibilities.

Mr. CHURCHILL: My right hon. Friend used an expression about prohibiting the publication of lists of winners. Now he is using another expression about a thing being an incentive to other people. I hope he will keep himself to the precise statement in regard to publication.

Sir J. GILMOUR: As I understood it, my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment used language which justifies my using this expression. If this Amend-merit were accepted, it would permit the publication of large lists of winners, which obviously would be an incentive to people to take an interest in these sweepstakes. In these circumstances, it is essential that publication should not be permitted.

5.26 p.m.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: The Amendment does not, of course, stop at the actual
list of winners. The Amendment proposes to leave out paragraph (c, ii), which deals with the lists of winners, and we shall later have an Amendment to leave out paragraph (c, iii), which relates to other matters relating to a lottery.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I understand that that will not be called.

Mr. FOOT: On the question of general publicity, the Committee has to make up their mind whether they intend to do away with such sweepstakes as the Irish sweepstake or not. It is certain that whatever we do here will be scrutinised by clever people on the other side of the Channel. As soon as the Measure is passed it will be subjected to close scrutiny, loopholes will be looked for, and every step will be taken by able men to do what they have been able to do in the past, that is, to draw large sums of money from this country. The Commission was clear that publicity was a main contributing factor in the building up of these sweepstakes. I am certain that, if in any way the Home Secretary relaxed these restrictions, immediate advantage would be taken of his relaxation, and the purpose of the Committee would be defeated as a result of the ingenuity that is shown on the other side. I hate restrictions unless they can be proved to be necessary. I go on the assumption that every restriction has to justify itself, but in this instance, if we are going to stop pouring out all this money and the exploitation of the people of this country by those who are just across the Channel, we must strike first at publicity and exclude lists from the newspapers. We must also exclude the announcement of the lottery. If it came to a question of lists of the losers, whereas the winners take two pages of the "Times," the losers in one sweepstake would occupy every column of the "Times" for 100 successive issues.
I have as strong an objection as the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) to all these restrictions, especially on the Press, but I think from what was said at the time that many of the Press welcome the opportunity of excluding from their columns matter which they had to include if they were not to be behind other papers. The
"Times" newspaper itself, in a leading article published after the introduction of the Bill, said reputable newspapers would welcome the relief from having to fill their columns with this matter, an obligation which they had to discharge if other newspapers did the same. Therefore, whatever plea has been put in for the newspapers, a plea may be put in for the other side, in order that, as a self-respecting people, we may have the news columns occupied by something which can contribute to the national wellbeing. We have to be careful to make the restrictions such that we shall not have the law of this country defeated by another country which is supposed to be a friendly country but in this matter has done a great dis-service, and I beg hon. Members who are concerned to defeat these proposals to see that the restrictions are not whittled down too much.

5.31 p.m.

Sir W. DAVISON: Two of the things which our liberty loving people prize most are, perhaps, freedom of the person and freedom of the Press, and this Bill strikes a deadly blow at both. In a Statute which is making criminals of people whom ordinary citizens do not regard as criminals, the criminality ought to be clearly and precisely defined, but in each of these paragraphs the criminality is vague in the most extreme degree. In the case of the Amendment just withdrawn it was pointed out that it did not make the position clear, and the Home Secretary has agreed to consider the drafting of words to put in the Bill what the Committee have in mind. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) pointed to what the Royal Commission said. I would remark here that I have read the whole of their report, as he has. They said it was an important factor in trying to stop money from going to Ireland and elsewhere to prohibit the newspapers from printing lists of prize-winners. There is a great deal to be said for that, and if those were the only words in the paragraph probably we should not have opposed it, but it is far wider than that. It speaks of:
Any matter descriptive of the drawing or intended drawing of the lottery.
and goes on:
Or any list (whether complete or not) of prize winners or winning tickets.
It is the words "any description of the drawing or intended drawing of the lottery" to which we specially object. It has been a feature of Irish Free State lotteries to have all kinds of pageantry in connection with them, to have girls dressed as jockeys—

Sir JOHN HASLAM: That is all part of the game.

Sir W. DAVISON: But it is not part of my argument. It is silly to interrupt like that. It is a very serious case. We are making criminals of large bodies of people whom no ordinary person regards as criminals and we ought to deal with the question seriously and without funny interjections. In the Irish Free State it has been part of their scheme to have pageantry in connection with the drawing of these lotteries. Suppose they had a procession of motor cars, or a procession of elephants, and the elephants stampeded, or one of the cars got out of hand and run amok among a number of British citizens in the Free State who were looking on. If an English newspaper, the "Times" or any other, reported that, unfortunately, certain hon. Members of this House or their relatives had been killed in that procession held in Ireland in connection with the drawing of the Irish Free State, that would be an offence under this Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Certainly it would be. The words are:
Any matter descriptive of the drawing or intended drawing of the lottery.
that is in connection with the drawing of a lottery. If there were a procession of girls to the place where the lottery was to be drawn a description of it would unquestionably be held to be an offence under these vague words.

Mr. MABANE: You said "in connection with."

Sir W. DAVISON: Well, take the words here. Supposing there were large numbers of people in the rooms and. that there was a stampede and they got mauled—there might be a cage of lions there to advertise one of these lotteries. The words are far too vague. We do not mind if the Home Secretary says that it is essential to forbid the newspapers publishing a list of prize winners, but the phrase "Any matter descriptive of the drawing or intended drawing of the
lottery" goes far beyond that, and interferes unnecessarily with the freedom of the Press. Why not say, "No paper shall publish a list of the prize winners." That would put it in a simple way. Why speak of a "description of the drawing" and all that sort of thing? Why should it be made a criminal offence to say that lifeboatmen and the Irish Blue Shirts and the Irish Green Shirts marched in procession and there was a collision in the middle of the room in the process of the drawing of the lottery and some English people got mauled? It would be illegal to report it and if it occurred we should know nothing about it. Let us stick to the common law of the country—that the Press are free to report anything they see. Hon. Members opposite have always stood up for that, more strongly, perhaps, than any other party. Let us get rid of vague words which have no precise meaning and no object. If we say "You shall not publish a list of prize winners" this criminal statute will be clear in its terminology.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. KNIGHT: I ask the Committee to take into consideration the fact that the words under discussion will be creating offences and that those offences will have to be scrutinised by the courts. In such a scrutiny the courts do not take into account any representation as to what were the intentions of Parliament. Their duty is restricted. I speak on these matters from a very long experience, and there are several of us here whose duty it may be to have to deal with these matters in the courts. Consequently we must have the words in this paragraph clearly expressed, because any representation as to the intentions of Parliament when passing the Measure will be quite irrelevant in court. It is proposed to make it an offence to publish any matter descriptive of the drawing or intended drawing of a lottery. If there were evidence that a newspaper had published an account of a lottery or an intended lottery anywhere, that would be an offence within the meaning of this paragraph. The Home Secretary stated just now that that is the law at, present. I cannot charge my memory as to whether those particular words occur in any statute, but I can only say that if they do it is obvious that the law has not been applied to many articles in the
Press of recent years. Whether or not that is the case, in construing this Measure, the courts will have to confine themselves to looking to the words in this paragraph.
The mischief aimed at here is a twofold one. We desire, first, to prohibit the advertisement of a lottery, and secondly the publication of lists of prizewinners. Both those purposes are consequential on the words which the House accepted last night, which I think give effect to the public welfare. I accept the evidence of the Royal Commission on which they are based, but, restricting the intention of this paragraph to this particular purpose, I ask my right hon. Friend to consider whether it is advisable to put into an Act of Parliament words under which any newspaper can be proceeded against for publishing an account of a lottery or an intended lottery. So long as the account is news, and is merely a description of what is occurring, I cannot see what objection can be taken to it. If the account were a veiled advertisement of the lottery I think it would be covered by the paragraph relating to advertisements. Therefore, I suggest to my right hon. Friend that he should consider the propriety of being satisfied with the words which make it an offence to advertise a lottery or publish a list of winners, and take out of the Bill these very dangerous words, which are a serious infraction of the liberty of the press.

5.43 p.m.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not accede to the appeal which has just been made. In dealing with a point on Committee stage we are always labouring under the difficulty of not being able to discuss what follows, and I suggest that this question would be ruled by the subsequent paragraph. The real purpose of these words is to do away with a cheap advertisement for the Irish Sweepstake. The hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) asked us to treat this matter seriously, but then referred to elephants running amok when the lottery was being drawn. I cannot imagine any officer of the Crown taking steps to prevent the publication of a photograph of an elephant running amok. Last night we decided not to have a State lottery
in this country, and why should we allow newspapers to popularise a lottery run by another State? If we did away with the publication not merely of the proceedings of the drawing, but of the list. of prize winners it would diminish the tremendous interest now taken in lotteries. Look at the temptation. An ordinary person, in a poor way of life, sees a list of prize winners, and hears. of a person who has put down 10s. and picked up £30,000. That person is made a hero in the newspapers. His photograph is taken, and his history from birth, his employment and so on are given. To the people in the district it becomes a matter of conversation that so-and-so has won a prize, and they feel a direct interest in the lottery. I can see nothing vague in these words, which I think are very necessary. As we are determined that we will not have State lotteries in this country, we will not permit advertisements or cheap popularity through the medium of newspapers to sweepstakes from other countries. I hope that the Home Secretary will stick to the words.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: A very formidable proposition is contained in these paragraphs. I thoroughly agree with what has already been said very fully, that if it is the intention to attempt to prohibit by law participation in the lotteries of the Irish Free State, the main process of operation will be the prohibition of the publication of lists of winners or of advertisements in the newspapers. There I quite agree with the Home Secretary; this is the staple of his apparatus, worth all the rest of it put together, and certainly likely to be effective. Although I think that the other course would have been best, and one which would have most conduced to the public interest and been most in accordance with the public will, the House has decided that lotteries on a large scale will be illegal, and the right hon. Gentleman is fully entitled to the prohibition of the publication of lists of winners in the newspapers. There, I think, he ought to stop, and not to go further and bring in, as the hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight) has said with great experience in this matter:
any matter descriptive of the drawing or intended drawing of the lottery.
The speech of the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) from the Liberal benches shows what a farce it is to pretend that there is any real championship of freedom there, where it is freedom when they can do the thing they want to do. In regard to things that they do not want to do, or which they think they have an interest to prevent other people from doing, politically or otherwise, they are perfectly prepared to use all those methods of repression, restriction, legal prevention and prohibition of every kind, as we have abundantly seen, while those methods in the hands of those to whom they are opposed are always dubbed weapons of villainous tyranny.
I hope that the Government will tread the sober path in this matter. It is very hazardous to go pressing into new paths of legislation. It is entirely novel that a newspaper should be prohibited from giving an account of any event that occurs, whether in Dublin, Paris or anywhere else. The House of Commons might consent to derogate so far from the liberty of the Press which we all regard as essential as to say that lists of winners shall not be published, as in the paragraph with which we are dealing, as well as to prohibit any advertisement of what is going to take place. Those two together are quite adequate. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. He might quite easily sit there and overload the Statute Book with a whole lot of vicious principles which are not necessary for the faithful and adequate attainment of the object which has been consented to and prescribed by Parliament. He has an overwhelming majority; he has only to ring a bell, and his vast, blind battering ram comes into operation, but he must be moderate for that very reason, and because of that power to carry anything right or wrong irrespective of what the country thinks about it. The decision is in his hands, and that is all the more reason for him to be moderate. He has no right to overload the Statute Book with things like this, prohibiting newspapers from describing facts and to say that a fact shall be blotted out. It is the sort of thing which happens in Germany. There were horrible murders, when great numbers of people were murdered, and the authorities said: "No reference to it shall appear in any newspaper." The fact was blotted out, and most people to whom I have spoken
about it have forgotten it, except the relatives.
It is not necessary for the fanatics who are pressing this matter, and who have some pull or control over the Government, some influence utterly disproportionate to their numbers, virtues, or reasoning power, to drive the Government into producing new departures in legislation which are very questionable, and are over and above what are needed to achieve the result. The Home Secretary is the guardian of public liberty; he is not merely a sort of glorified chief constable for locking people up. He ought to remember that protection of liberty is his duty, too. I sat in his place for some years, and I certainly think it is very undesirable to put one word in that you do not need. What more could you need than to prohibit advertisements and to prohibit the publication of any list of prize winners, whether a complete list or not?
Now I should like to point out that it is impossible to discuss paragraph (c, ii) without having in mind the next paragraph, which is of an even wider nature. The words in (c, iii) are protected by a special enactment in Sub-section (3) of this Clause stating that
Proceedings…in respect of matter published in a newspaper shall not be instituted except by, or by the direction of, the Director of Public Prosecutions.
No such protection covers the words in (c, ii). I shall have something to say about Sub-section (3) when we reach it. I suggest that for the present, to begin with, the right hon. Gentleman might agree to leave out of (c, ii) the words as far as and including
drawing of the lottery, or,
and confine himself to
any list (whether complete or not) of prize winners or winning tickets in the lottery; or.
Then we can come to the discussion of (c, iii), bearing in mind that it is covered to some extent by the fact that it is placed under the very superior discretion and jurisdiction of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I hope that the Home Secretary will see that he has all that he needs if he takes the last two lines of paragraph (c, ii).

5.54 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I should like to deal with one or two of the re-
marks which have been made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). The Home Secretary reproduces in this paragraph the existing law of the Lotteries Act, 1836. He is not reproducing anything novel to our Statute Book in prohibiting advertisements or notices of this kind. I am not referring to the specific words. They are not the exact words of the Act. I will deal with them on their merits. In our opinion, it is vital to the carrying out of the main purpose of Parliament, and it is much fairer to the Press, to have in the words to which the right hon. Gentleman objects. The words:
sells or distributes, or offers or advertises for sale,
clearly cover an express advertisement for sale, that is to say words which say "Come and buy." You can, however, advertise by other methods than by express words. There are pictures, such as those of the beautifully arrayed women during the drawing of the Irish Sweepstake during the drawing of the tickets, but showing also a little notice underneath saying "Every ticket which is drawn may bring the recipient so many hundreds or thousands of pounds." That is just as clearly an advertisement.

Sir W. DAVISON: No.

The SOLICITOR- GENERAL: Of course it is.

Sir W. DAVISON: Nonsense.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It is an inducement towards bringing about what this Committee has declared shall not be brought about.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman describing the present Bill or the law as it exists? I thought that he was describing the law, but now I gather that he is proceeding to deal with an alteration of the law.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I referred only to the law as it existed to-day in order to say that provisions of this kind are in the Act of 1836.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The point is in the word "descriptive."

Sir W. DAVISON: The Act is 100 years old. Can we not improve upon it?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: My Amendment was to leave out paragraph (c ii) but the Solicitor-General is talking about paragraph (c i), which is now part of the Clause, to all intents and purposes. Is he not making a speech on a matter which has already been decided upon by the Committee?

The SOLICITOR- GENERAL: The words of the old Act specify an
Advertisement or other Notice of or relating to the drawing.
It is not restricted to advertisements, but covers a notice relating to the draw.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: If a notice means anything in the way of news, will the hon. and learned Gentleman tell me why he has not prosecuted newspapers for what they have been doing?

Viscountess ASTOR: It is a secret.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I have merely referred to the old Act in order to make the point that there are to be found in it provisions of this kind.

Sir W. DAVISON: They are 100 years old.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The words are:
If any Person shall print or publish or cause to he printed or published any Advertisement or other Notice of or relating to the drawing or intended drawing.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Why are those words not good enough?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: They are rather ambiguous, and they might give rise to all sorts of discussions as to what was "a notice of or relating to." I am suggesting to the Committee, first of all, that matter descriptive may just as effectively be an Advertisement as an express advertisement, which is covered under paragraph (c, i). We think that it is fairer to the Press and that it is not only necessary to prohibit advertisements but to include these words, so that there shall be no ambiguity or difficulty. If these words were not here, newspapers would use matter descriptive of the drawing. It might then be suggested with some force that that was, in effect, a disguised advertisement of the lottery, and anyhow it would have just the same appeal as an advertisement. There will
be no difficulty with the Press in this matter, and the wider and more general the words the less the difficulty. This is to be declared illegal, and every newspaper, if the words are left in, will say: "We must have nothing in our pages descriptive of or relating to the drawing or the intended drawing." "Relating to" is ambiguous, and difficult to construe. It is making the task of the Press easier to include these words, and it is necessary that they should remain in.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. PIKE: I only rise to point out one omission on the part of the right hon. Gentleman from the excuses which he has given for not accepting this Amendment. The excuse he put forward was the recommendation of the Royal Commission, which was, he said, that they considered that any advertisement or any description of the drawing or intended drawing of a lottery was the greatest incentive to persons to purchase tickets in that or another like undertaking. But what exactly did the Royal Commission say in this regard? The Home Secretary only told the House half the story. In their recommendations, at page 146 of their report, they use these words:
To publish any information concerning foreign or illegal lotteries, including information about the results of drawings and the award of prizes, save where the information is simply a piece of news and is free from any probable tendency to encourage participation in lotteries.
That is the Royal Commission's Report. Why has not the right hon. Gentleman embodied this part of the Royal Commission's Report in his defence of the non-acceptance of this Amendment? Does the right hon. Gentleman elect to put himself in a better position to define the difference between a piece of news and an advertisement in relation to this matter than the law courts of the country? If so, why is he not brave enough to put it into the Bill, so that we can all know exactly where we stand? If the Report of the Royal Commission is good enough for the right hon. Gentleman to build upon it the major portion of this Bill, surely it is good enough for those who dislike the portions which he has accepted to point out to him some of those portions which he should have accepted and the acceptance of which would have conduced to the well-being of his Bill?
What is going to be the position? The ultimate division of the spoils in the lottery organised in Southern Ireland depends upon the result of a horse race known as the Derby, raced at Epsom once a year. Will the publication of the result of that horse race—the winner, the jockeys' names, and the prices at which the horses started—inasmuch as it will be directly pertaining to the drawing of a lottery, be illegal; and, if so, what of the requirements of another section of the community of this country, who do not want anything to do with this Bill, or with any lottery in any other country, or even connected with the result of that race? If these words remain as they are, in spite of the obvious difficulty with which the Solicitor-General wriggled round the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), I want to know what is going to be the position when newspapers are challenged, simply because of the publication of a piece of news, for publishing descriptive matter in relation to the drawing or intended drawing of a lottery? Is the Home Secretary going to rely on the law which the Solicitor-General has just quoted? If he is going to rely on that law, why does the Solicitor-General say that the law is far too cumbersome to introduce it word for word into this Bill? That is the. law upon which he has to rely if he charges any newspaper with a contravention of this Measure, and surely, if that law is good enough to rely upon in the courts of this country, it should be good enough for embodiment in the Bill. The Solicitor-General told us that the newspapers prefer these words—

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: No, I never said that. I said we thought that it would be fairer to the newspapers.

Mr. PIKE: I do not know whether I can pursue that matter, but, if the right hon. Gentleman and the Solicitor-General thought it was fairer, why did they only think it was fairer? Why did they not take the trouble to find out? A very important question is at stake, that of the liberty of a newspaper to print descriptive news of any popular event, and I, for one, shall have the greatest pleasure in voting against the Government if they force this matter to a Division.

6.6 p.m.

Mr. R. T. EVANS: I only wish to detain the Committee for a few moments in order to make an appeal for a sense of reality. The distortion, exaggeration and over-statement this afternoon have been worthy of a kindergarten. The great issue is one of the right of the Press to publish facts. Surely a list of winners is something tangible. They are facts. To distinguish between the fact of a list of winners and the fact of a description relating to the actual drawing requires far more psychological subtlety than I have at my command.

Mr. CHURCHILL: If I may interrupt the hon. Gentleman, the words which are so helpful to this Committee at the present juncture are:
save where the information is simply a piece of news and is free from any probable tendency to encourage participation in lotteries.

Mr. EVANS: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is not so guileless as not to realise the possibility of a very subtle method of advertisement in these matters—

Viscountess ASTOR: I think he is.

Mr. EVANS: The Noble Lady has known the right hon. Gentleman much longer than I have. Surely, however, there is no issue here as to the freedom of the Press. What really matters is that a limit should be set to the inducement to purchase tickets in the Irish or any other sweepstake. That is the sound, utilitarian principle. The hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) talked about a great cavalcade of elephants, and his mental elephantiasis seems to have infected the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), who talked about the suppression of facts in Germany, and so forth. My appeal to the Committee is that they should come down to reality, that they should leave the phantom imaginings of a kindergarten and face this matter as a Parliament in Britain ought to face it.

Sir W. DAVISON: rose—

HON. MEMBERS: Divide!

6.9 p.m.

Sir W. DAVISON: The matter which we are now discussing is a very important one, namely, the freedom of the Press.
Let us have it properly dealt with. The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. R. T. Evans) asked how it was possible to distinguish between a list of winners and the description of a lottery. The Royal Commission have made that distinction in the phrase which has been read more than once to the Committee. The hon. Gentleman spoke of a kindergarten, which exactly applies to the words which we are moving to delete. Are we all a set of babies that we cannot have a description saying that an Irish lottery was held? The next step would be to say that, because there is a certain amount of betting on the Derby, there shall be no description of the Derby itself. Good gracious! Where are we going to? I have been in this House for 18 years, and have never heard such a Debate as we have had to-day. If the Socialists had put forward this proposal, Conservative Members would have eaten them alive. But here we have a Conservative, or partially Conservative, Ministry—a Ministry represented by Conservatives—putting forward these monstrous things without rhyme or reason. The Royal Commission said, quite sensibly, that they did not recommend these big lotteries, and thought that the best way to stop them was not to allow them to advertise in the Press or to publish lists of winners. That is quite sensible. They used the words which have been read out, and it is quite a sensible recommendation. But this Government, who appear to desire to make us all criminals and to bring the whole of the law of the country into disrepute and ridicule, have put in the words:
any matter descriptive of the drawing.
How will that induce people to take tickets in a lottery which was held yesterday? If we see in the Press to-day a statement that the Irish Sweepstake was drawn yesterday, that the girls were dressed as elephants, or giraffes, or anything else, or that there was a procession of hyenas, how will that enable people to take tickets in the lottery when it has been drawn? The whole thing is grotesque from beginning to end, but it is serious in the sense that it aims a blow at a thing which is very precious to this country, and that is freedom—freedom of the individual, freedom of the Press. I say quite seriously that, if this is going to be stopped, the next thing will be that, when some paper reports
that there was a crowd opposite the Elysée in Paris because people were all going to the drawing of a French lottery, that will be a crime. It will make the duties of the Press intolerable. I hope that the Socialists will stand up against this and vote in the Lobby to prevent the addition of this absurd and unnecessary Clause to the Bill.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I hope and trust that the Home Secretary is going to give some reply on this point, which really is the crux of the whole matter. It is not a small matter. It has been debated on both sides, and we do not disagree on the major point; we agree that the publication of lists of winners should be prohibited. But this is an essential Clause in the Bill, and I hope we are going to hear from the right hon. Gentleman some answer to the arguments which have been put forward—some indication either that he is considering them or has found in his mind some mental process which enables him to reject them. I rose to ask him a specific question. Will he kindly say why it is that the provision in Sub-section (3) that a prosecution shall not be instituted except by the, direction of the Director of Public Prosecutions in respect of any proceeding under paragraph (c, iii) is not applicable to paragraph (c, ii), in which general words are introduced at the beginning? If paragraph (c, ii) had nothing in it but the precise, specific statement that a list of winners must not be published, it would not be necessary to have these vague words:
any matter descriptive of the drawing of a lottery.
It seems to me that this, at any rate, ought to be put into operation under the protection of Sub-section (3), for what it is worth. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure me that that can be done? It seems to me to be the only reasonable way.

6.15 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: On this matter I should like to say that, if the House is consistent with itself and with the country, it is necessary to accept arrangements for the taking of such steps as are necessary to carry into effect the directions of the House. It is clear from the report of the Royal Commission that the publication of these lists of the
names of winners or losers, and the general advertisement of these things, is highly undesirable. That is why paragraphs (c, i) and (c, ii) are deliberately drawn in the way they are. When you come to (c, iii), about which the right hon. Gentleman asked me, it is, of course, a matter of opinion whether it is matter of a nature calculated to act as an inducement to persons to participate in the lottery. We have here had in mind the fact that a mere notice that the French Government had possibly produced some lottery to raise money for some Government purpose, and a description of what was being done, as the Royal Commission said, is not a matter which we should desire to prevent, and that is why I have tried to give the protection of that particular paragraph. As to how far anything published is an incentive to people to take part, that of course is a matter of opinion. As a further safeguard we provide that proceedings shall not be taken except with the advice and consent of the Public Prosecutor. It will then be for the court to decide.

6.17 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Will my right hon. Friend answer the point why he will not apply this to paragraph (c ii) as well as to (c iii)?

Sir J. GILMOUR: As I have tried to explain, one is a matter of fact and the other is a matter of opinion.

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is not so. Surely, if there is any difference between the two there is more guilt in the second charge than in the first. The first charge may merely result from a description which is held to have an evil tendency irrespective of any purpose or intention. Paragraph (c iii) talks about matter of a nature calculated to act as an inducement, yet there is more protection for an error under that than under the preceding paragraph. That is not logical. We are completely in the right hon. Gentleman's hands. It is only his own censure that he will proclaim in the words of his own Statute if he allows an oversight of that kind to pass.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: If a newspaper published in another country describes a French or an Irish lottery and a copy is brought to this country, a person who
distributes it will be distributing matter relating to the lottery. Do I understand that, when the Bill becomes law, the importation into this country of any newspaper printed in another country containing a description of the Irish or any other lottery will be illegal?

6.19 p.m.

Sir W. DAVISON: May we have an answer? This is a most important point. There are regular organisations for the distribution of Continental and Irish newspapers, and we really must know if the Government know what are the repercussions of the Bill. We must know whether a paper coming in giving a description of an Irish or a French lottery is illegal. If it is legal, it knocks the bottom out of the whole thing. It is absurd, because we shall simply have French and Irish papers coming in. On the other hand, every time there is a draw in Paris or in Ireland are the "Temps," the "Belfast Newsletter" and the "Irish Times" to be shut out or to have portions blacked out, as is done in Germany? Will not that excite the curiosity of people who will want to know what it is?

Sir J. GILMOUR: My answer to that is that merely bringing in a particular newspaper would not be an offence but, if it could be shown that certain parties were deliberately bringing in large numbers of copies for the purpose of advertisement, it would, be an offence.

Mr. LOGAN: In Liverpool and in Scotland papers from other countries come in in thousands and are distributed by agents. This is prohibition against newspapers coming into the country. Am I to understand that any agent of any depot will be proceeded against? It is nonsensical.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: We must really have an answer to this important point. If only the first part of the paragraph is going to be put, the Debate can be resumed, but if the whole paragraph is going to be put now we must have an answer to this new fact which has only just emerged in the discussion. Suppose the "Irish Independent" or the "Irish Times" publishes a full list of these winners and it is brought over here in the ordinary course by thousands and
sold, like the "Sheffield Daily Telegraph," or the "South Wales Daily News" in the bookshops, is that an offence, although it will contain information of interest to very large numbers of people which not a single newspaper in Great Britain may publish under the most severe penalties? Suppose the publishers of these papers foresee increased sales and send over many more copies, will those who distribute them be guilty of an offence? The Government must have an opinion one way or the other. They may have a majority, but they must also have an opinion.

6.25 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I agree that discussion in the House very often brings out useful points. I tried to say that I did not anticipate that what we are doing here would interfere with ordinary commercial distribution, but if it is used deliberately for the circulation of what Parliament wishes to prevent being published in the Press, it is infringing the purpose of Parliament. I am prepared to look into the point between now and Report, but we must try to stop backdoor methods of doing the thing that the House desires to stop. I have so drafted the Bill that I think we are doing it, but I am prepared to look at the point between now and Report.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: In view of the important declaration of my right hon. Friend, which naturally we accept in full sincerity, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, and I hope the Home Secretary will try to meet this very great difficulty.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: in page 18, line 7, after "money", insert "or valuable thing."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 18, line 11, after "or", to insert "causes or knowingly."
This Amendment is merely to bring the Clause into line with what we have already done on Clause 3 as amended on Monday.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. HANNON: I beg to move, in page 18, line 32, to leave out Sub-section (4).

Mr. CHURCHILL: I wished to move an Amendment to Sub-section (3).

The CHAIRMAN (Sir Dennis Herbert): Does the right hon. Gentleman say he has an Amendment down?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, but I wish to. move one. [Interruption.] Are we not allowed to do that now in the House of Commons?

The CHAIRMAN: We have passed the point at which the right hon. Gentleman wished to do it. If he wished to move an Amendment, the proper course was to hand it to the Chair. The Chair cannot take every word of the Clause right through to see if anyone wishes to move an Amendment. I have had no notice of it at all. In any case, we have passed the point.

Mr. CHURCHILL: If you are not allowing verbal Amendments, I have lost my opportunity. I will take steps to bring it up on Report.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. HANNON: I think that hon. Members who read the Sub-section must be astonished at its terms. It says:
If, in any proceedings under paragraph (d) of Sub-section (1) of this Section, it is proved that the person charged has brought, or invited another person to send, into Great Britain any ticket in, or advertisement of, a lottery, he shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved,
and so on. The common understanding in the minds of the people of this country is that British subjects or, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) called them, His Majesty's lieges, are presumed to be innocent until guilt is proved against them. But under the terms of this Subsection, the unfortunate person who is found in possession of a ticket, or of that undefined, X-value block of tickets which the magistrate may decide comes within the purview of the Bill when it becomes an Act, is presumed to be guilty until he can prove the contrary. That is a reverse of the process of the old common law of this country, for one of His Majesty's lieges is presumed to be innocent until a charge brought against him is definitely proved in a court of law. The Home Secretary, who, I am sure, has the greatest possible concern for the liberty of the subject in this country, proposes to put into an Act of Parliament the obligation upon a person accused of proving that he is innocent before the prosecution has to
make good its case. That process of law will be against the common sense and good feeling, and certainly against the traditional rights of the citizens of this country. In observing the law they desire to be treated by the law with that consideration which Magna Charta conferred upon the citizens of this country.
I ask the learned Solicitor-General, who is more intimately acquainted with the law than anyone on these benches, how he can justify the expression in this Subsection? We have already had a very interesting, if somewhat disturbing Debate upon the interference of this Measure with the rights and liberties of the Press. Now we come down to the rights and liberties of the people, and, surely, if we proceed to tighten up the law in this country in relation to lotteries, we must no carry out that tightening process by striking a blow at the primitive right of the people of this country of being proved guilty of any charge being brought against them. The Amendment should be accepted by His Majesty's Government. [Interruption.] One does not expect in this Committee very much order from the Liberal benches.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: At the time of that remark no one on these benches was making any conversation at all. We were listening to every word.

Sir W. DAVISON: It is the disorderly people behind you.

Mr. FOOT: I am not responsible for hon. Members sitting behind me.

Mr. HANNON: During a previous discussion this afternoon there was continuous conversation going on on those benches, and it was extremely difficult to hear what the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State was saying. It does not need any elaborate arguments in an appeal to the Committee to presume that the proposal in the Sub-section is an alteration of the existing law and an infringement of the right of His Majesty's subjects in this country.

6.36 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: With the general tenor of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon), of course, we all agree. I also agree that, looking at the Clause for the first time, at any rate, it seems to be contrary to the principle to which
he referred, but I think I can show the Committee that, in fact, that is not so. This Sub-section deals only with foreign lotteries, that is to say, the bringing into Great Britain of tickets or advertisements in connection with a lottery. The Sub-section says:
If, in any proceedings under paragraph (d) of Sub-section (1) of this Section, it is proved that the person charged has brought, or invited another person to send, into Great Britain any ticket in, or advertisement of, a lottery.
That is to say, that in dealing with tickets or advertisements which come from abroad into this country you are dealing with lotteries which are illegal.

Mr. PIKE: On a point of Order. This is very difficult to understand. The hon. Member's Amendment has to deal with Sub-section (4), which has relation to paragraph (d) of Sub-section (1), which says:
brings, or invites any person to send into Great Britain for the purpose of sale or distribution any ticket in, or advertisement of, the lottery.
It does not say what lottery. To apply to it the term "foreign lottery or sweepstake" is not correct.

The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order, and I think that we should get on better if the learned Solicitor-General were not interrupted when he is actually trying to explain. Perhaps if the hon. Member would restrain himself until the Solicitor-General has completed his explanation he may have a chance, as he has had on previous occasions, of saying what he has to say.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: If my hon. Friend objects to my using the word "foreign," I apologise to him. I use the word in the sense that it applies to lotteries abroad where someone invites someone else abroad to send tickets into this country. I think that it is not incorrect to say that this Clause deals with foreign lotteries. Lotteries, subject to the exceptions of the next two Clauses, are being declared illegal and one of the main tasks laid by my right hon. Friend upon the authorities is the prevention of foreign lotteries, lotteries promoted outside Great Britain, but, in effect, being carried on within our borders. It might well, therefore, be thought proper by the House to have made it an offence
to bring into this country, or to invite any person to send to this country, any ticket or advertisement of a lottery. If we had done that and had stopped before the words to which my hon. Friend drew attention, the law would have been more oppressive.
If the Sub-section is read in this form, namely, that any person who brings, or invites any person to send, into Great Britain any ticket in, or advertisement of, a lottery, shall be guilty of an offence if it is brought in for the purpose of sale or distribution. In making it an offence to bring into this country, or cause to be sent into this country, a ticket from one of those lotteries which it is desired to prevent, there can be no question of the purpose. It would be no answer to say, "I did not intend to sell or distribute it." The mere bringing in would constitute an offence. People might argue whether it was too onerous or not. Anybody would know that if he brought in a ticket of a lottery from abroad it would be an offence. I do not think there, could be any complaint if the law could be in that form, but we desire to be less onerous and not to bring within the pale of the criminal law someone, who, having bought a ticket outside this country, brings it here without any intention of sale or distribution. Having regard to the desirability and necessity of stopping this flowing in of tickets from abroad, we think that it is not unfair to say, "Though we will not make it an offence for you merely to possess or bring in a ticket, we will put the onus upon you of showing that you have not brought it in for the purpose of sale or distribution."

Mr. HANNON: The real point at issue is the presumption of guilt. It is that which really sticks in the minds of many of us. The wording is very awkward.

Sir W. DAVISON: It is contrary to the whole of British law that a man should be presumed guilty until the Law Officers of the Crown and the criminal law have proved him to be guilty. It is contrary to all our law, and these words ought to be put in in some other way. He ought not to be presumed guilty until he is proved guilty in a court of law.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I was about to say that this did not in any way exclude that principle. If my hon.
Friend wants these words out, we shall be driven to take a course which would be more onerous, and would make it an offence merely to bring in a ticket or to invite someone to send in a ticket. We can quite easily remove the offending words, but in the process make the law more oppressive. It is the principle of our law that people should not be presumed to be guilty until they are proved to be guilty, but that does not really apply where the presumption is only thrown on to the prisoner at a stage when he has already done something which in itself might constitute an offence. Therefore, for those reasons we are asking the Committee to accept the Sub-section. The effect of removing those words would involve the Government in making the law more oppressive.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. ENTWISTLE: I cannot think that the explanation of the Solicitor-General can be regarded as quite satisfactory. As I understand his explanation, it is that under the Bill as drafted it is not an offence to bring in a ticket from abroad if you mean to keep it in your own possession and not sell it. The offence is committed only if you bring it in for the purpose of sale. That is the intention of the Bill. It is not to be an offence to bring the ticket in unless for the purpose of sale, and yet if a person does something which is professedly not an offence under the Sub-section, he is to be put to the expense of proving that he did not bring the ticket in for the purpose of sale, although he may have brought it in under a provision in the Act which will make it legal for him to do so. I think that is most onerous and unfair.
If the presumption is that he has committed an offence under the Act by mere possession, it means that he cannot do something which is allowed as legal under the Act without going to the expense of proving it in a court of law or, at any rate, proving it to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Prosecutions, or some other person of that kind. That is an innovation in the practice of the administration of British justice. The only case in which there is a presumption of guilt is where it is so difficult to prove it, and where it is very much in the interest of the public that the offence should be
capable of being proved that you put the onus on the person to prove his innocence.

Sir JOHN WITHERS: Suppose a person is charged with being in possession of stolen goods, is there not a presumption that he stole them?

Mr. ENTWISTLE: There is, but here you are making it legal to bring a ticket into this country from abroad if you do not mean to sell it. Why then should you have to prove that you are doing what is legal when there is no reason for thinking that you do not mean to keep it in your own possession? Why should you have to go to the expense of proving that, although you are only trying to do something that is legal under the Act, what you are doing is not illegal? That is a preposterous position, and one which the Committee should not accept.

6.48 p.m.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I hope, also, that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General will reconsider the Government's decision in this matter. In the first place, was he right in saying that the Subsection applies only to foreign lotteries? The first words of the Sub-section show that the whole of it applies to lotteries promoted in Great Britain or elsewhere. Therefore, it is not only foreign lotteries that are affected. It is easy to conceive tickets being printed abroad for a lottery to take place in this country. Therefore, the Sub-section may apply to a British lottery. It seems plain that paragraph (d) creates an offence. The essential ingredient of an offence is that you should bring tickets in for sale and distribution. Until you have brought them in with that object in view you have not committed an offence. Why, therefore, if you have not committed an offence should you be liable to be prosecuted and asked to prove that you are innocent? That seems to me to be wholly contrary to the spirit of our administration of the criminal law. It is giving with the one hand and taking away with the other. It is saying: "We give you the lenient paragraph (d) and will not punish you unless you have brought the ticket in for the purpose of sale and distribution," but it takes away that benefit the moment the person is put on trial. It is an innovation that people should be tried for something which they have not done and which is
perfectly innocent of the avowed criminal ingredient which is created by the Statute.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. GURNEY BRAITHWAITE: I added my name to the Amendment because I felt that it raises a question of such great importance to the individual that the Committee would not be wasting its time in giving it a certain amount of careful and detailed consideration. Earlier in our proceedings this afternoon we were discussing the machinery for searching dwelling-houses for lottery tickets, and the Solicitor-General gave an answer to a question which comforted me, that in that event the onus would lie upon the prosecution. Other hon. Members were also relieved to hear that announcement. I was somewhat comforted by the speech he has just made, which showed that the intentions of the Government are perhaps a little different from what some of us thought when we tabled this Amendment. I should be grateful if he would clear up one or two points of difficulty which still exist in my mind. Several hon. Members have asked why there should be this presumption. Surely if a person buys one or two tickets in a foreign lottery when abroad, and he brings them home, that does not raise the presumption that he intends to sell those tickets?
There is another eventuality that may arise under the Sub-section. Suppose a person in this country asks a friend on the Continent to send him a ticket or tickets in a foreign lottery. Why should there be the presumption that those tickets have been asked for because he intends to sell or distribute them? Surely it would arise under this Subsection that just as it would be perfectly legal for me to bring from abroad into this country a ticket in a foreign lottery for my own use, so it would be legal for me to write to a personal friend on the Continent asking him to send me a ticket, as long as it is for my own use. Again, under the Sub-section the onus of proof will be placed upon me to show that the ticket was not sent to me for the purpose of sale. That is a serious departure from the usual procedure in this country, that an individual who is doing something which the Statute tells him is perfectly proper, having received through the post
a ticket from abroad for his own use, should be put to the expense and annoyance of having to show that he is merely doing something which he is entitled to do. I should be greatly relieved to hear from the Solicitor-General for the second time this afternoon that in this case also the onus lies on the prosecution.

6.53 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: I hope that the Home Secretary will take into consideration a very important point which has not been raised up to now. The Sub-section says that if it is proved that the person charged has "brought." The word "brought" is conclusive. Persons may visit this country from the Continent, taking England in their itinerary with the object of viewing the sights. They may have in their possession lottery tickets which they have purchased. Therefore they will have brought them here. What will be the effect of this Sub-section? Will there be interference with those people? Is the passenger trade of this country to be impeded by the police coming along and putting into operation this Act in searching for those lottery tickets?
If I go to Dublin and I pay 10s. for a lottery ticket which I bring back with me, must I give an explanation on the presumption that I am going to sell it, although it is only one ticket? It seems to me a ridiculous proposition.
The National Government are perplexed over the question of sweepstakes and are at their wits' end to know how to legislate to get rid of the difficulty. The anomalies that they are creating seem to me to be greater than those which they seek to remove. You may have a ticket sent to you, but if you bring it yourself it is presumed that you are going to sell it and action may be taken against you, because it is in your possession. I do not know why you should have to prove that you do not intend to sell it, when it is only a question of one ticket. If there were dozens of tickets in one's possession there might be prima facie evidence that you were going to do some trade with them and that would be a different matter. It seems to me that amateur detectives and amateur lawyers will have a rich harvest out of this Bill when it becomes law, and I would suggest that this is amateur legislation.
People ought to have the right to move from one place to another with as little difficulty as possible. The presumption that if you have only one ticket you are going to sell it is the most ridiculous thing that I have ever heard. If I had in my possession one or two tickets it would be reasonable to say that I had a right to purchase them, and that they belonged to me. Why then should I in England, the land of the brave and the free, under a National Government, be told that the conventions which we have exercised in the past are to disappear? We are to have an inquisition. We have to prove that the things in our possession have been lawfully bought by us. Until one can prove that these things are ours legally we are to be told that we have no right to them, because we may have brought them here to sell. Suppose one has a 10s. ticket. What is it presumed that a man is going to do with that ticket? The question of profit is not in it, because no one would give more than 10s. for a 10s. ticket. The ticket would not be brought in to be sold for less than had been given for it, unless there was something mentally wrong with the man who was selling it. A man is to be presumed to be dishonest and to be breaking the law and liable to be brought before a court of summary jurisdiction to prove that he is entitled to have a ticket. We have no right to inconvenience people in this way. The mere fact of going into court may be damnatory to many people. It is a most unfair procedure that is laid down. The Minister would be wise in withdrawing it.

7.0 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel AGLAND-TROYTE: I should like to know if the Home Secretary and the Solicitor-General could agree on this question. The Home Secretary says that he does not consider there would be any harm in having a few tickets to distribute to friends, but he wants to prevent a large number of tickets being brought into the country and a profit being made out of them. The Solicitor-General says that it would be an offence to have a ticket in your possession, to have a single ticket for sale. Apparently it is not illegal for a person to purchase a ticket or to have one in his possession. This is to prevent people from selling them. Under this Subsection we are considering, for example,
if I were to write to a person in Ireland and ask him to send me one ticket, is it to be presumed that I have that ticket for sale It is obviously absurd to presume that I have the ticket for sale. Why should it be for sale? Really, it is absurd that we should be asked to pass a Sub-section of this sort.

7.2 p.m.

Mr. BRACKEN: I would like the Solicitor-General to explain this point. If I import a paper, say the "Belfast Newsletter" with a full page advertisement of the Irish Sweepstake, might I be brought before a law court? I do not see why the hon. Member the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster should say "Rot."

The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Mr. J. C. Davidson): I never opened my mouth.

Mr. BRACKEN: If I buy a newspaper that contains an advertisement of the Irish Sweepstake, and carry it about with me, I am in fact advertising an illegal procedure, and may be brought to court by the Home Secretary. It may be that I could explain to a magistrate that I did not intend to do anything of the kind. I might be able to prove that I bought it for its religious or political news. Still it would be a great inconvenience to be hauled before a court to explain my coming into this country with a paper advertising a sweepstake. It might put me in the criminal class. What is the point of all this useless legislation? Legislating for a stricter control over the Press, while it is open to anybody in Ireland to go to a Broadcasting Station and say what they like in favour of sweepstakes! One can go to Luxemburg and advertise the Irish Sweepstake and say, "Send me 10s. in an envelope and I will send you a 10s. ticket by return." It is ridiculous to try to prevent such things by this Bill. It seems extraordinary that the Government confronted by vast problems should waste their time bringing in a useless Bill, passing Clause after Clause to deal severely with anybody who gives information about sweepstakes, when it is open to anybody who likes to go to Dublin or Luxemburg to advertise sweepstakes. This Bill says that you cannot buy English newspapers, but you may import foreign journals. I congratulate the Government on this contribution to an English industry.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. MABANE: I would make my appeal as one who has supported this Bill throughout, and who has supported the Home Secretary on every point that has arisen so far. I am a little uneasy on this account. I think the people of this country would rather know precisely where they are, than be subject to the ambiguity that they find here. If it were proposed to be an offence to be in possession of a ticket for a lottery, people would know where they were. If it were not an offence to be in possession of a ticket, but an offence to have it for the purpose of distribution, they would also know where they were. I think that, as the Bill stands at present, it is not an offence to be in possession of a ticket, though people might discover, if this Sub-section were put in force, that it is an offence to be in possession of a ticket, unless you can prove that you have not bought the ticket into this country for the purpose of sale or distribution. In fact, unless you could prove that, you would find yourself guilty of an offence.

Mr. O'CONNOR: The only offence is to be in possession of a ticket for the purpose of sale or distribution, in which case you might be hauled into a police court and forced to explain why the ticket is in your possession, in the same way that you might be asked to explain why you are carrying a watch.

Mr. MABANE: I think I merely stated. in my non-legal language, what the hon. Member has just stated. If I am in possession of a ticket and cannot prove that I am not in possession of that ticket for the purpose of distribution, I shall be guilty of an offence and be convicted. I am therefore uneasy on this point, and would like to add my voice to those who have asked the Home Secretary to reconsider this question, and either make it illegal to be in possession of a ticket or illegal to try to sell that ticket.

7.8 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have listened to this Debate and to the Debate on the whole of this Bill. I should have been quite frankly a little more encouraged to concede, if I had not been confident that the speeches had been delivered for the deliberate purpose of expressing hostility to the Bill. Of course, that may be per-
fectly justified. These speeches have declared that a great many persons resent the restriction which Parliament has decided, to impose on these proceedings. That is apparent. It is unanimous. I am very anxious not to do anything which infringes on what we recognise to be fair and reasonable in dealing with matters of innocence. The kind of thing I have in mind is that there are people, whom it is not easy to catch, who come into this country to flout the law deliberately. The efforts of every Government to deal with this problem have been frustrated by the cunning of individuals. In trying to deal with this problem at this time we cannot shut our eyes to those facts. I am borne out in this attitude by the experiences of late. While I am quite willing to look at this problem again as a result of this Debate, I must be perfectly frank, and say that I am obliged by direction of this House to see that there are no loopholes left. I do not want to be unfair, but we must not burke the fact that there are loopholes at the present time, and it is essential that we should close them. In these circumstances, I will carefully go into this matter with the Law Officers.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: My right hon. Friend dealt in his speech principally with the case raised by the hon. Gentleman of the onus of proof being shifted to the person in possession of a ticket. He promised to consult with the Law Officers to see if that matter could be settled. I think we can certainly leave that aspect where it has now been put, because I am quite sure he is anxious to produce the best possible form with the desire to meet some of the objections. He has said that it is his duty to stop all these loopholes. The air is a very wide loophole, but I should say the ether, imperceptible, tenuous, which laps the universe, is the loophole which he will have to stop. What is the answer to that? What is the use of putting up all this tremendous apparatus of penalties, of restrictions on newspapers, prescribing that this and that shall not be done, no publication of winners, with all the forces of Liberalism behind it? What is the use of obliging those gentlemen in their ardour for repression, when all the time the great, wide world is free, and there is the fullest information coming from broadcasting stations?

The CHAIRMAN: If we are to enjoy listening long to the right hon. Gentleman on these lines, he will have to reserve these observations till we come to the Motion "That the Clause stand part."

Mr. CHURCHILL: Thank you very much; I will do that. Indeed, the Committee especially charged the Home Secretary to stop these loopholes, which will take a lot of his time. There are two gigantic loopholes, broadcasting and the Irish Sweepstake newspapers, for the plugging of which not the smallest plug has been suggested.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: The Home Secretary cannot accuse me of having said much upon this Bill. I might possibly have said a good deal if I had not wished to help him forward. In the first place, what is the use of saying that a, person may have a ticket and then later on contradict it? The right hon. Gentleman has promised to go into that matter but it is a pity that there should be this contradiction in the Bill. In the second place Sub-section (4) is meant to deal only with stuff coming in from abroad. In the first part of the Clause you are dealing with a lottery proposed to be promoted either in Great Britain or elsewhere, but under Sub-section (4) it is conceivable that you may have a ticket in a perfectly innocent lottery in Great Britain, a legal lottery under the Bill. If you went to Ireland or the Continent and came back with the ticket in your possession you would be bringing it in. It would be as well on Report stage for the Home Secretary to put in an Amendment making it perfectly clear that this only relates to lotteries promoted abroad. There is a loophole, and a difficult position may arise. We are bound to point it out to the Government. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will have success in stopping this loophole. I do not know how he proposes to deal with the Irish, being a Scotsman himself, but they have generally beaten most of us.

7.18 p.m.

Sir W. DAVISON: I am obliged to the Home Secretary for having promised to look into this matter and get rid of words which are contrary to any idea of British justice, that a man is to be presumed to be guilty before he is found
guilty. At the same time, I desire to register my protest against what the Solicitor-General said in replying to my statement. He said that if I and my friends did not like the Bill they would take out the words and alter the whole scope of the Bill and make people criminals who brought in a ticket from abroad for their own use. We are legislating for the public not to score off individuals. I rather resent the idea of trying to score off the public in order to score off a humble Member of the House. These words are objectionable and I am glad that the Home Secretary has promised to look into them. When he is cogitating on the matter I hope he will remember that the Government have said that the object of this part of the Bill was that it should commend itself to the great mass of public opinion. It will not commend itself to public opinion if anyone is presumed to be guilty until he is found innocent by the courts of this country.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

7.21 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I will not weary the Committee by prefacing my remarks but will come directly to the point I reached in the course of my speech which was interrupted, to which we must have an answer. What is the answer of the Home Secretary? How is he going to stop the loophole of perpetual broadcasts of the winners and the advertisements? Has it ever occurred to him that there was such a loophole; or has it dawned upon him now for the first time? I thought he was startled when he began to realise what he had to do in the case of newspapers coming from Ireland. Whoever is going to benefit it is certain that the Irish newspapers will benefit very largely. They will have a continuous feature in all their pages of the state of the Irish Sweep, the methods by which tickets will be drawn, all those descriptive accounts which are such a shocking offence when committed by English newspapers, and also a list of winners. These papers will come in by the thousand; their circulation, of course, will go up. People who are following this matter for their own interest will ask their newsagents to get them. Is that to be a
crime; is it an offence? Are you going to make it an offence? Let us have an answer before we cast these things into the form of statute law.
Assuming that a great many people would like to have the "Irish Times" for a particular week, or for particular days, is the newsagent committing an offence if, in the ordinary course of his business, he complies with the desire of his customers and gets the necessary copies of the journal? If that be an offence, we want to know. The Home Secretary said that it is a question of those people who are trying to advertise the sweep. These people do not care anything about the sweep; they are only selling their newspapers, and they are going to do good business. That is a point which must be met. For the moment I am enlisting myself on the side of my right hon. Friend, trying to face the difficulties which will confront him, difficulties which will have to be met. I thought that he himself would have made some contribution towards a solution. If you wish to be logical and carry this thing through with the high hand, or foot, as the case may be, you will have to have a new series of provisions designed to deal with the import of foreign newspapers, or Irish Free State newspapers.
The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot), in his desire to put down this evil at whatever cost to liberty, has tried to play upon anti-Irish prejudices; he has tried to work up our dander against the Irish Free State. He must face the consequences. If the Home Secretary is effectively to prevent the circulation of the list of winners and other advertisements of the Irish Free State Sweepstake in this country, he must take power to blot out these passages in the Irish newspapers and in foreign newspapers which contain these references, or he must seize the whole edition. There are plenty of precedents for that process. In Germany at the present time we see in our newspapers again and again that a particular edition of the "Morning Post" or the "Times" or the "Daily News has been seized in Germany. Do you propose to do that? if you do not, you cannot handle this matter. Thousands and thousands of these newspapers may come in and the
information will be given. If you are not going to take power to seize editions which have these advertisements and the results of the draw, then it is a farce to attempt to deal with this difficulty, and you are subjecting English newspapers to great injury and injustice. What are you going to do to Irish Free State newspapers? What are they going to do to you if you take power to blot out whole pages, say, of the "Irish Independent" or the "Irish Times" or to seize the whole edition? Do you think they will sit still and do nothing? They will retaliate. They might stop the "Times,' a great supporter of His Majesty's Government, going into Ireland, and then what a row there would be. They might say, "Let us have a quota, let us have reciprocity"; there is no limit to the difficulties into which you might get.
The Home Secretary may be a little vexed, but we are doing him the greatest service in warning him of these difficulties. It is amazing that he has not foreseen the pitfalls which lie before him. The whole of this Clause becomes valueless unless you take power to deal with the importation of foreign newspapers and also with what has never been mentioned before until my hon. Friend mentioned it—I confess that it had not occurred to me—the fact that everything can be disseminated by the broadcast, and that with the greatest ease millions of people in this country, between five and six million people, can listen to the whole story of the Irish Sweepstake. What a zest will be added to it when it is a way of getting round a law which carries with it no sort of public sanction. Instead of listening to the Home Secretary extolling the National Government, you will find them all listening to these other broadcasts. There will be a keen hour on the air. What is the right hon. Gentleman going to do about that? Is he going to start some great station to queer the atmosphere, set up atmospherics, to strike in with a. great boom? If so, he will raise further difficulties. Nothing is more dangerous than an illusory attack on liberty. Under the Liberal impulse this poor, unforeseeing Government is being drawn step by step into a series of confusions, contradictions and muddles, which will make it the laughing stock of the country.

7.28 p.m.

Mr. O'CONNOR: The Home Secretary seemed to think that those who made some observations regarding this particular Clause were opposed to the principle of the Bill. That is not true, at any rate in my own case. In listening to the gallant eloquence of the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) I realised in what bad company I had got in venturing to criticise this part of the Bill, which has certain defect's which the Home Secretary has promised to consider. I agree with the Clause. I agree with every attempt to stop the sale of Irish sweepstake tickets in this country. The right hon. Gentleman said that it is possible to broadcast advertisements, but you cannot broadcast tickets, whatever else you may get. Up to the present the problem has been an administrative one, how to deal with the question of preventing tickets coming into this country. I do not think that the Home Secretary has even now gone the right way to deal with it, and I would suggest that a simple Clause saying that 100 per cent. of the winnings are to be forfeited to the Crown would be by far the simplest way of dealing with the situation. I imagine that there are but very few people who would care to go to Ireland and live there in order to spend their winnings. The money could be seized by the Government if it were brought here, or those who won could go outside and spend it.
A perfect nuisance these sweep announcements and publicity must have been to every newspaper in the country, even respectable journals like the "Times," with columns and pages plastered with this rubbishy invitation to meretricious gambling which is of no advantage either to the country or to the individuals who take part in it. I think most thinking people will be very glad to see an end of it, even people who are not particularly puritanical or Liberal in their outlook. At any rate in this Clause a good deal has been done to limit the amount of publicity that it can get. The Government have not stopped up all the avenues, for they cannot stop up the air, but they have limited the area of publicity, and to that extent something has been done to limit the power of these extra-British gambling associations to prey on the gullibility of people here by offering them very little for what they contribute, and to use this country as the
milch cow for any kind of philanthropy they care to indulge in or any indirect taxation that they please. I cordially support the Clause.

7.32 p.m.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I intervene for a moment only to follow what was said by the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). He told the Committee that he was very anxious to help the Government, and I hope that that fact will be recognised by the Government Front Bench. But is it fair of him to say that the Bill is under the influence of such inspiration as may have come from the Liberal benches in this House? The right hon. Gentleman must know the genesis of the Bill. The inspiration of it did not come from any party but from the Royal Commission set up by the Government. When the Commissioners were charged with the serious responsibility of dealing with a recognised social evil no one knew what their recommendations would be. They might very well have recommended that some scheme of national lottery should be set up. There were some people who anticipated that result. I do not know that there was a single Liberal amongst the Commissioners. All I know is that there was not one of the Commissioners who had taken any prominent part in Liberal politics in this country. I could go through the list of Commissioners, from Sir Sidney Rowlatt at the head. Some, I know, are Conservative. Sir Stanley Jackson, one of the signatories, was for many years a Member of this House. He was chairman of the Conservative party. I do not think it can be said that if we take the 12 Commissioners there was any inspiration coining from a number of fanatics or a number of Liberals. Therefore, the inspiration of this Bill did not come from us. We were never consulted about it. The Commissioners made their recommendations to the Government. Some of those recommendations were not adopted, but in the main the Government have taken the Commissioners' suggestions, and in particular they have acted on the recommendation in relation to lotteries. It is mere empty rhetoric for the right hon. Member for Epping to spend so much time in gibing at those who sit upon the Liberal benches. We would like to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether he thinks it is an evil which should be
dealt with or whether he thinks we are to tolerate year after year the going out of vast sums to another State.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now inviting a reply. It is time I called his attention to the Clause with which we are dealing. I did not raise any objection to what the hon. Member said on behalf of his party in reply to certain aspersions or supposed aspersions on the character of his party, but we cannot now enter into a Debate on the genesis of the Bill.

Mr. FOOT: It is a little difficult for us to sit absolutely quiet under the continual gibes of the right hon. Member for Epping. Upon this Clause I quite recognise that in dealing with a matter of this kind there must be loopholes. There is the newspaper; there is the difficulty of the broadcast. After some experience it may be necessary to take further steps to carry out what is the desire of the Government of the day; but I am satisfied that if we can take the steps that are included within the Clause at any rate a very substantial experiment will be made. The evil will be brought within very much narrower limits. There is nothing to prevent the Government, with the experience they gain in the next two or three sweeps, to take such other measures as will enable them to implement what is undoubtedly the intention of this House. So far as those steps are being taken I understand that generally that have the approval even of those who are the opponents of the Bill.
I think that the Government very rightly say that in this matter they do not contemplate that they can deal wholly with the evil upon which the Commissioners laid such emphasis. But they can deal with a great deal of it. We are prepared to support the Government to the extent that they do deal with the evil in the Clause now before the Committee. If it is found that newspapers pour into the country and use is made of the broadcast, I do not say that we can meet those difficulties, but to some extent they can be met, particularly in relation to newspapers, under the terms of this Clause. If it is found that the ingenuity of those who are running the sweepstake in the Free State can frus-
trate the purposes of Parliament, the resources of this Parliament will not be exhausted, and such other steps will then be taken as experience will dictate.

7.38 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I hope the Committee will now come to a decision on the Clause and let us pass on to other matters. I have undertaken already to look into the question of newspapers particularly. As the Bill has been before the House for a considerable time I can say that some proposals have been made during the Committee Stage that might well have been made at an earlier stage. I do not complain, but I do say that the matters to which the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) has referred have been considered by the Government.

Mr. CHURCHILL: With what result?

Sir J. GILMOUR: With what result it is not advisable to state. It would not be politic to advertise the fact any more than is necessary. That would be inviting the newspapers of another country to take advantage of the disclosure.

7.39 p.m.

Sir W. DAVISON: The Home Secretary has suggested that some of us who were disappointed because the Committee came to a certain decision last night are introducing these Amendments to destroy the Bill. That is not the case, because we recognise the decision of the Committee; and the fact that the Home Secretary himself has agreed to take back three of the Clauses to see whether they can be improved is justification of our action in bringing forward these Amendments. The right hon. Gentleman said that a number of things had been discovered in this Debate and that they had not been overlooked by the Government. The Bill proposes to make a number of people criminals for doing certain things, and, that being so, it is essential that their crime should be clearly defined in the Bill. It was with the object of getting such a definition that the Amendments were put on the Paper. I have on the Paper an Amendment which was riot called. I and my friends do not understand the meaning of the words "or chances" in Sub-section (1, b), which contains the words:
sells or distributes, or offers or advertises for sale or distribution, or has in his possession for the purpose of sale or distribution, any ticket or chances in the lottery;
What is the difference between "tickets" and "chances" Will the Home Secretary look into that matter also when he is revising this Clause?

7.42 p.m.

Wing-Commander JAMES: I cannot let the Debate on this Clause end on that note, with the suggestion by the hon. Member that this Clause was primarily designed to create criminals. The whole object of this Bill and of this Clause has been to prevent the public from being fleeced. The very necessary Debate on the Clause has disclosed certain weaknesses admittedly, but to say that the Clause is designed to create criminals and to repress, puts the wrong emphasis on it. The object is to stop the exploiting of the public, and that object has the support of a large number of Conservative back bench Members and other people who have not taken part in this Debate.

7.43 p.m.

Mr. BRACKEN: I wish to raise a rather technical point but one into which the Home Secretary must look. Under this Bill it is possible for Lord Rothermere, who publishes the "Daily Mail" most excellently in London, in Manchester and in Paris, to be prosecuted for publishing it in London and for publishing it in Manchester but enjoy with impunity an enormous circulation for his Paris edition containing the Irish Sweepstake results. It is very unfair for the Government to give Lord Rothermere encouragement because he happens to publish the only Paris edition of an English newspaper. I do not think he is so well disposed to the Government that they should go out of their way to support him. The Government's action is most unfair to the hon. and gallant Member for Dover (Major Astor) and others who represent newspapers which have given unstinted support to the Government. We poor men in the newspaper industry have to watch this fine whale swim about in Paris and get an enormous English circulation for his newspaper. Why are London publishers to be disciplined because they cannot afford to publish a Paris edition? In any event it should be made a condition that Lord
Rothermere should support the Government in return for the great, but unsought, favours he receives from this Bill.

CLAUSE 21.—(Exemption, of small lotteries incidental to certain entertainments.)

7.45 p.m.

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: I beg to move, in page 19, line 14, after "lottery," to insert:
after deducting the amount applied to the purchase of the prizes and,
This is an entirely non-controversial matter and I hope that my right hon. Friend will see his way to accept the Amendment. It relates to the conditions to be observed in connection with the promotion and conduct of the lotteries which are under this Clause to be exempted. Sub-section (2, a) provides as one condition that the whole proceeds of the entertainment after deducting expenses excluding expenses incurred in connection with the lottery other than expenses incurred in printing tickets, are to be devoted for purposes other than private gain. I do not think that it can be the intention of the Government but there is a grave possibility that if the wording of this Sub-section remains as it stands in the Bill, money applied in the purchase of prizes for a lottery of this kind will not be allowed for in arriving at the proceeds under this condition. The purpose of the Amendment is to make it clear that the value of the prizes is to be deducted from the amount collected from the sale of the lottery tickets before the amount of the proceeds of the lottery is arrived at. Otherwise if the term "proceeds" were interpreted to mean the sum collected by the sale of the lottery tickets without the deduction of the money spent on prizes, it would really neutralise the value of this concession in the case of these small lotteries.

7.47 p.m.

Captain CROOKSHANK: This Clause applies to the very smallest lotteries in which the prizes are not sums of money but articles. These are lotteries of the kind which take place usually at bazaars, sales of work, fetes, entertainments and the like. We did not wish to have enormously complicated regulations to
deal with those lotteries and, therefore, we have merely put into this Clause words which are descriptive of the lotteries usually held in connection with bazaars, sales of work and so forth. A good many of us in our political life have experience of these entertainments and as far as I know the normal practice is to raffle some article which has been presented for that purpose. I do not think I have ever known the case in which the promoters of a bazaar have gone out and bought things to be raffled. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Well, I think the normal practice is to get some benevolent person to present a pincushion or something of that kind. There may be exceptions but I think the normal practice is to raffle gifts and we have merely described in this Clause what is the normal practice as far as our experience goes.
The hon. Member now raises the question of going out and buying an article and then making it a prize in a lottery, but he must recollect that the whole object of this Clause is to prevent the possibility of unscrupulous people, under the cloak of the small lottery or the private lottery, developing schemes for private gain. As we see it, as soon as we allow the prizes for a bazaar of this kind to be bought and the money deducted from the proceeds, we get into complications as to the value of the prizes and all that sort of thing. We also think that we would be affording a possible loophole to the unscrupulous persons to whom I have referred.

7.50 p.m.

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: Do I understand then that it would not be possible to take advantage of this Clause unless the prizes had been presented by some benevolent person? My hon. and gallant Friend has mentioned political functions and entertainments of this kind and many of us have had experience of them in our constituencies. No doubt he is more lucky in the Gainsborough Division than other hon. Members are in their divisions, but I think that it is a. general experience in connection with these matters that it is very often imperative that some small purchases should be made outside in order to provide these prizes. Does the hon. And gallant Gentleman therefore say that unless the
prize has been presented advantage cannot be taken of this provision?

Captain CROOKSHANK: The only expense which can be deducted from the proceeds of the entertainment is the cost of the printing of the tickets.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. PIKE: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman attach importance to the wording of the Clause? It provides that a lottery promoted as an incident of an entertainment to which the Section applies is to be deemed not to be an unlawful lottery if certain specified conditions apply, and then in Sub-section (2, a) we find that one of the conditions is that the whole proceeds after deducting the expenses of the entertainment, excluding expenses incurred in connection with the lottery other than in the printing of the tickets, are to be devoted to purposes other than private gain. Surely, if the lottery is an incident of the entertainment, whatever prizes are offered for the lottery must be part of the initial cost of the entertainment. Whether one has to buy the prizes outside or is relying upon some kind of collection to secure them, there is no doubt that except where the prizes are actually gifts they constitute a part of the initial cost of the entertainment. I think it is only fair in those cirstances to insert in the Bill words to the effect that where the prizes are not gifts the cost should be deducted from the amount of the proceeds to be taken into consideration. This matter is more important than it appears on the surface. If these words are not inserted, in my opinion, Sub-section (2, a) runs contrary to the wording of Sub-section (1).

7.54 p.m.

Sir PHILIP DAWSON: Cases occur over and over again in which a body of people in some locality wish to raise money for some worthy purpose. Very often this is done by means of a raffle of a watch. The watch is set going and the person who guesses the second at which it will stop wins the prize. Hundreds of tickets may be sold for a raffle of that description, and the promoters have to deduct from the amount of the proceeds the actual cost of the watch because they have been unable to find anyone to present then with a watch for the purpose. Many of these raffles are of great benefit
to various causes, and I would ask the Under-Secretary to consider eases of that kind.

7.55 p.m.

Colonel GRETTON: This appears to be another case in connection with this Bill, in which the Government have failed to declare specifically what they want to do. This is a serious question because it affects lotteries of this kind which take place in a great many parts of the country, and unless this matter is made clear a certain amount of irritation and annoyance will be caused. It is desirable that we should know exactly what the Government intend in this respect. Do they intend that these small lotteries are all to rely entirely upon gifts as prizes, or is it intended that where prizes are bought the cost should be deducted from the proceeds of the raffle for this purpose?

Captain CROOKSHANK: The Amendment proposes that the amount spent in the purchase of prizes should be deducted and that is what I have said I do not want to accept.

7.56 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will see his way to accept the Amendment. I think he exhibited a certain want of knowledge as to what happens in the country and especially in the depressed areas in connection with these lotteries. Anyone acquainted with the depressed areas knows the difficulty which is experienced in raising money by these methods for various local purposes. They also know that in many instances the question of gifts does not arise at all, or only to a very small extent. There is much benevolent work done by churches of all creeds in the poorest parts of our great cities, and they are not dependent upon gifts of prizes, and without an Amendment of this kind the value of the concession offered in the Clause would certainly disappear in those cases.
I think the Home Secretary is anxious to be generous in those cases, and I would ask him to remember that in many poor parishes the people are at their wits end to know how to carry on with various useful works. Periodically bazaars are held. Sometimes in a suburb where there are resident gentry
who make their livelihood in the heart of the city but sleep in the suburb, generous gifts may be forthcoming on occasions of that kind, but we do not get gentlemen of that fraternity in the depressed areas. What happens there is that a committee meets to decide ways and means. It usually decides that there shall be prizes, such as a canteen of cutlery or some electro plate, and as a rule the first inquiry made by the chairman is, "Where is the money to come from." The procedure usually is to print the tickets first setting out a list of the prizes and then to go to the shops and to select the prizes. The prizes are placed on exhibition in the hall or the school where the bazaar is to be held, and there is a debit account in the shop against the income derived from the tickets. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment is right in what he has said as to the deduction in this case. In many of these districts, what is called in my neighbourhood the "bunce," or the surplus or profit after the prizes have been paid for, is very small indeed, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman would only be doing justice and giving an opportunity for good and useful work in the depressed areas if he accepted the Amendment.

7.59 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I cannot see why we should have a long Debate on a small issue of this kind. The Government having decided to allow the cost of printing the tickets to be deducted there is no question of principle involved in allowing the cost of the prizes to be deducted as well, and I think the hon. arid gallant Gentleman might well have given way on this Amendment. The only danger that I can see is that if this Amendment is accepted, it might be taken as an invitation to people to buy prizes instead of getting them from the charitably disposed. I see a weakness there but I have never been in contact with a bazaar or fete so considerable as to warrant all this fuss about haying prizes. The people associated with the Labour movement in my division are always willing to give towards a Labour bazaar, and I was rather astonished to learn by inference that the Tory party is aided by the doubtful means suggested by the hon. Member. Having said that, I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman might look
into this matter once again. I do not see any principle involved in accepting the Amendment.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. PETHERICK: Most of us, I think, know that very often charities, whether in the Labour movement or elsewhere, wish to raise money by bazaars, and sometimes they apply for prizes and are not lucky enough to get them given. In those cases prizes may have to be bought. But I see the Government's difficulty. They do not want to open the door for somebody, under the guise of a bazaar, running a large scale lottery. I think it might be possible, however, by some extra definition of the word "expenses" in the Sub-section, to find some means which will not only avoid all evasions of the law, but will also satisfy the Movers of the Amendment.

8.1 p.m.

Mr. T. SMITH: I do not see the Government's difficulty in this matter, and I think the Committee will agree that the Under-Secretary of State has put forward an opinion which is not generally held in the Committee. I see the learned Attorney-General in his place, and as there appears to be some doubt as to what is meant by this language, I suggest that we are entitled to hear from the right hon. and learned Gentleman what is the opinion of the Government on this point.

8.2 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel LLEWELLIN: It seems to me that if the Government do not accept the Amendment, the only form of body that they will penalise is the body that at the moment has not any funds. If you get, say, a branch of the British Legion with funds, quite clearly they will buy prizes out of those funds, and a small lottery will take place at the entertainment. They then do not have to charge the prizes for the lottery against the proceeds of that lottery, but they go into the general funds of the branch, which are not matters of private gain, and the whole of the proceeds go, although as a matter of fact the prizes will have been bought by the same fund. Therefore, it seems to me that by refusing this quite reasonable Amendment, you are only penalising those who have not any funds whatever to start with.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary of State seemed disinclined to accept the Amendment and said that we might encourage people to carry on wholesale lotteries under the guise of these small entertainments, but I think that if he will reconsider the matter, he will find that that cannot be so, because the whole of the rest of the proceeds cannot go for private gain, and any person who wants to start a wholesale lottery will not do so unless it is a matter of his own private gain. Therefore, I think the reason given by the Under-Secretary of State will not hold water, because people will not start these lotteries and run them in order to make money out of the public if they have to put the rest of the proceeds into something other than private gain. I hope the Government will reconsider their attitude before the Report stage and not penalise those small bodies which do not happen to have sufficient funds to buy prizes in advance.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. HASLAM: I should like to support those hon. Members who have urged the acceptance of the Amendment. I will not adduce any further examples, as many have been given already; I will only appeal to the Under-Secretary of State to follow the example set this afternoon by his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and to say that at any rate he will take the matter into consideration before the Report stage and consider whether he cannot meet us on this comparatively small point.

8.6 p.m.

Captain HEILGERS: I am afraid I take an opposite view to that expressed by most of the supporters of this Amendment. I have found, in running lotteries of any description, that we could always get all the prizes that we wanted, given. I sympathise with those who find difficulties in the distressed areas, but I feel that if we go in for any process of allowing deduction of the value of the prize money, we shall be letting in the unscrupulous promoter, and we shall be debasing the whole system of lotteries in this country.

8.7 p.m.

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: Why have the Government accepted the principle of giving permission for small lotteries? It is being done to help political organisations—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think the question put by the hon. Member arises on this Amendment. The question is whether the prize money shall or shall not be deducted from the proceeds of the lottery.

Sir LAMB: My object in trying to elicit that information was because I was going to prove that if the object was to assist charity, the very fact of leaving the Clause as it is would mean that those cases which are the most deserving would be absolutely cut out. If, however, I may not ask a question, perhaps I may make a statement. If the fact be that you are trying to help bazaars and political organisations, they are held as a rule by people in the particularly happy position of being able to give the prizes, but if, on the other hand, you are going to give facilities to help those who most need help, namely, ex-service seen or others who may be down and out, and you deprive those who are organising these affairs of the possibility of buying the prizes, which they may sell by means of a lottery, you will deprive these people of the opportunity of receiving the help which they most need.

8.8 p.m.

Colonel GOODMAN: May I say a few words in support of the Amendment? I do not intend to speak of political organisations, but I wish to say a word or two about church bazaars, of which I have quite an experience, and I would like to congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Captain Heilgers) on being able to get all the prizes given to him in his constituency. In many churches, however, in the poorer districts there is not a sufficient quantity of goods brought along to fill up a stall, and it has been the custom for the curate in charge or the vicar to spend some of the money which has been subscribed for the bazaar or the sale of work in the purchase of groceries and small articles to sell again. It has been my experience almost invariably that at the end of the bazaar there is a residue. Some groceries are left over, some woollen goods, some stock of some kind, and the only way in which these goods can be disposed of is by a raffle at the end of the bazaar. If they are not able to deduct the cost of these goods which they raffle, the goods are left on their hands, and what might have been a profit on the
sale of some of the goods purchased will be turned into a loss, because they are unable to dispose of the balance.

8.9 p.m.

Captain CROOKSHANK: The object of the Committee stage of a Bill is to enable the Committee to state its views and the Government to consider what is said, and I do not think it is necessary for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary every time to say that he will consider the question. The whole object of the Debate is to consider the wording of the Bill in the light of what is said in different parts of the House. With regard to this particular Amendment I give my hon. Friends the assurance that, of course, I will consider it, but this Amendment would be quite unworkable. When you say, "after deducting the amount of the value of the prizes," who is to decide the value?

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: It applies to the purchase of prizes.

Captain CROOKSHANK: The matter is rather more complicated than if it were limited to these little bazaars. Somebody will have to prove how much is actually spent. We are trying to close a loophole, not against the reasonable people who run these little affairs, but against the unscrupulous men who, we know from experience, try to drive a coach and four through any provisions that we may make. It would be possible, if we inserted this sort of provision, for an absolutely fictitious value to be put in the accounts of a bazaar by the promoter of it. He might purchase something and put in the accounts that it cost him £20 to buy, when actually it cost 4½d., and while he would not get the net proceeds for private gain, he would get the difference between what he paid for the article and what is shown in the accounts. Those are some of the difficulties with which we are faced if we allow an extension of the words in the Bill. On the next Clause, where larger lotteries are dealt with, we deal with the problem of the purchase of prizes in those lotteries in a different manner, but I am not yet convinced by anything that I have heard this evening that it will be possible to stop the loophole that we want to stop in this Clause in the way proposed by the Amendment.
Of course, however, we will consider it. That is the whole object of the Committee stage of a Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel LLEWELLIN: Could not a man equally send in a fictitious account of what he paid for the printing of the tickets?

Captain CROOKSHANK: He could, but I do not think the unscrupulous promoter would be able to make very much out of that.

8.13 p.m.

Sir EDWARD GRIGG: I am obliged for the assurance given by my hon. and gallant Friend that he will consider this Amendment, but I support the arguments used by those who have spoken in its favour, and it cannot, I think, be beyond the resources and the ingenuity of all the hon. and gallant Gentleman's advisers to devise something that will prevent this Clause from penalising the poorest of those who get up these lotteries and, at the same time, keep out the unscrupulous promoter. At many fetes and things of that kind, lotteries would not take place unless it were possible to apply some part of the proceeds to the purchase of prizes. I sympathise with the Government's desire to keep out the unscrupulous promoter, but to do that at the expense of penalising those who most require these lotteries in order to carry on, does not seem to be a fair course to pursue.

8.14 p.m.

Mr. EMMOTT: I should like to associate myself with the Amendment. The Minister, when he first addressed the Committee upon it, rested his argument upon a certain assumption. What was that assumption? It was that generally, if not universally, the prizes in these lotteries are gifts and not purchases. But I think that on reflection he will agree that that assumption is not justified and that that practice does not by any means universally or even generally obtain. On the contrary, it is very frequently the case that these prizes are purchased. When for the second time the Under-Secretary addressed the Committee, he took a different ground. He then answered my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) upon the assumption that the wording of the Amendment was, "after
deducting the value of the prizes," and he suggested that it would be impossible to arrive at a true estimate of this value. The wording of the Amendment, however, is, "after deducting the amount applied to the purchase of the prizes."

Captain CROOKSHANK: I am sorry if I made that mistake. I was looking at the Order Paper for yesterday, but the argument is the same.

Mr. EMMOTT: I appreciate the position. But the Under-Secretary then suggested that a fictitious value might be placed upon the prizes. Why should such a suggestion be made? Why should it be suggested that a fictitious account might be rendered? Surely there is no ground for any such suggestion. I respectfully submit to him that on both occasions when he addressed the Committee the assumptions on which he rested his argument were unsound.

8.17 p.m.

Colonel GRETTON: May I ask a question of the Minister as to how we stand? The Under-Secretary promised to reconsider the question before the Report stage. Will an opportunity be given to consider it on the Report stage, or will the Government only put an Amendment down if they are convinced that there is a case for it? We want to see this Amendment or a similar Amendment to carry out the purpose of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), but shall we lose the opportunity of debating the matter unless the Government put an Amendment down on Report?

Captain CROOKSHANK: All I said was that the object of the Committee stage was to enable Members to place their views before the Committee so that the Government can consider them. There was no definite undertaking that I was going to put down a Government Amendment.

Colonel GRETTON: In the absence of a Government Amendment, what opportunities will there be to raise this matter again on the Report stage? It often occurs that a matter disposed of in Committee is not raised again unless the Government themselves take action.

8.19 p.m.

Mr. PALING: As I understand the position, what usually happens is that if the Government are impressed to some
extent that the arguments of hon. Members have something in them, and if a promise be made that the matter will be considered before the Report stage, it is generally assumed that those ideas will be embodied in a new Amendment on the Report stage if the Government think fit. Does the present promise carry that procedure with it?

Captain CROOKSHANK: I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows what I mean. We will consider what has been said, but whether we think an Amendment is necessary and desirable, and whether we are convinced with the arguments will be another question.

3.20 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: I think we should have all been satisfied with what the Under-Secretary said but for the manner in which he said it and but for what he said just now. As a rule, when a Minister says, "I have listened to all that has been said and I am impressed by the fact that perhaps there is a case, but at the moment I do not think I can accept the proposal," we take it for granted that he has seen the point and is going to make an endeavour to meet it. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has not talked to us as if that was in his mind. He has conveyed the impression that his mind is closed on the subject. If it were proposed to wipe out all these lotteries, I should vote for it, but, if we are to have them at all, we ought to have this Amendment or something embodying the principle of it. My hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) assured me just now that in his division they are all wealthy enough to do without this sort of aid. Where I come from we have not rich people to make cakes and articles to fill up a bazaar, so the goods are brought in, and there is a percentage on their sales. Often parcels of grocery that have been put in the bazaar on sale or return are made up and raffled in the ordinary way. Then the organisers have to pay for those goods. Surely that ought to be taken into account. Printing is taken into account. Those who are opposing us are anxious to prevent swindling. We all are, and I do not think we shall get rid of it until we get rid of any form of gambling. While, however, the Government leave lotteries to be carried out at church, Labour and other functions, they
ought in equity to accept the Amendment. I should like the Home Secretary to get up and say frankly that the principle is good, but that the words probably are not the right words, and that he will endeavour to meet hon. Members on Report. That will safeguard us, because none of us has any right to approach the Speaker on Amendments; but custom shows that when a promise of that kind has been given, consideration is given to it if the Government do not put down an Amendment and other people do.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have not heard the Debate on this Amendment, but I understand from the Under-Secretary that he has said that we shall be prepared to look at this problem in the light of what has been said. I can only say that we will do so honestly, and that, if we think it is right to meet the point that has been made, undoubtedly we shall put down an Amendment to meet it. I am not committing myself, but I can assure the Committee that we shall look into the Amendment carefully in the light of what has been said.

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: In view of what has been said by the Home Secretary, in contradistinction to what has been said by the Under-Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following Amendments stood upon the Order Paper:

In page 19, line 15, after "tickets," insert:
and cost of prizes of not more value than one pound in each entertainment.
In line 16, at the end, insert:
except at an amusement park, gala, fair, and places where mechanical amusement, riding chariots, and other carriers may be in operation, except also in places when circular and straight games, both mechanical and semi-mechanical, are in use, and where a competition exists the success in which depends upon the exercise of skill in the operation of such circular and straight games."—[Mr. Knight.]

8.25 p.m.

Mr. KNIGHT: On a point of Order. I understand that the Amendments standing in the name of myself and my hon. Friends are out of order, but would you allow me to make an appeal to the Home Secretary respecting them? These Amendments were intended to raise a grievance felt by travelling showmen.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member is quite correct in the point of Order he has raised. The Amendments to which he refers, although they are governed by the old Betting Act, deal with what is technically known as "gaming." If the hon. and learned Member will look at the long title to the Bill he will notice that the Bill relates to betting in only a very limited aspect, namely betting on certain tracks and with totalisators. It also deals with lotteries, but it is not a Measure to amend the law relating to betting generally, and therefore I must hold that anything dealing with gaming is out of order. With regard to the second point, I would suggest to the hon. and learned Member that he should make his representations personally to the Home Secretary.

Mr. KNIGHT: Certainly.

8.26 p.m.

Mr. T. SMITH: I beg to move, in page 19, line 17, to leave out paragraph (b), and to insert:
(b) money prizes in the lottery shall not in the aggregate exceed twenty pounds.
So much has been said during these last three days on the evils of filthy lucre derived from gambling that I almost hesitate to move an Amendment containing the word "money." The Committee have just been discussing how the prizes are to be obtained, whether by gift or by purchase, and in this Amendment we deal with prizes which can be given in certain circumstances. The Under-Secretary displayed remarkable innocence a few moments ago when dealing with the bazaars and fêtes which will be permitted under this part of the Bill. If he had been sitting on the back benches as the hon. Member for Gainsborough instead of in his present position as Under-Secretary to the Home Office I feel that he would have displayed considerably more knowledge of them. The entertainments dealt with here are bazaars, sales of work, and other entertainments of a similar character. I know a constituency in which the Conservative party have a great fete on a bank holiday each year, and advertise some Tory Member of Parliament as a speaker, and then put alongside it the announcement "And other entertainments." I was never able to understand whether the various Members of Parliament who attend were brought down for the purpose of entertainment or instruc-
tion. At some bazaars or fêtes people buy a ticket for a penny or sixpence and prizes are offered to the holders of certain tickets, and that is to be permissible under this Bill to a limited extent and, incidentally, for the purpose of the undertaking.
Anyone who has had experience of bazaars or fêtes or sales of work will know the variety of prizes offered. A bearded collier who buys a three penny ticket finds that he has become the winner of a box of face cream which somebody in the locality has been kind enough to present; a bottle of "Johnnie Walker" is probably won by some teetotaller, who is perplexed to know what to do with it; somebody wins a live pig who has got no pigsty, because he lives in a council house; or a ton of coal won by somebody who has no need of it because he happens to be in lodgings. There are a hundred and one such humorous incidents in connection with these bazaars. I do not see anything seriously wrong or sinful in winning a £5 note at either a sale of work or bazaar. I do not see that there is any fine distinction between winning money or money's worth. This is the kind of thing that may very likely happen. A man who wins an electric stove has a house in which only gas is laid on, and the stove is no use to him. Therefore, he goes to the man who presented the stove and says: "This is no use to me, although I have won it, what will you give me for it?" And if it is worth £1 the shopkeeper will say, probably, "I gave the stove with all good grace, and I do not mind buying it back from you for 15s." Neither I nor my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) is wedded to the sum of £20 mentioned in the Amendment, but we would like to see some limited sum, £20, £15, or £10 permitted as a money prize in entertainments of this character. Hon. Members know that on occasions they give to certain entertainments in their constituency. Some may give a cheque, others may give a pound note, and I do not see any harm in our allowing money prizes of a limited amount. I hope the Home Secretary will be able to meet us in this matter.

8.32 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am afraid that I cannot accede to the request which has been made to me. If once we legalised money prizes at events of this kind it
would be holding out an invitation to the lottery promoters to come and join in. I am not aware of all the circumstances surrounding bazaars, but I have been to many bazaars, no doubt thinking that I was, perhaps, giving instruction, though it may have been entertainment; but in any case I feel it would be most undesirable to legalise money prizes at these small affairs. We know that certain things are offered as prizes which the ordinary man cannot, perhaps, afford to buy but which he may win there in a raffle. That is the kind of thing I have had in mind and which I want to see made legal, under certain conditions; but when it comes to money prizes I must resist.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I quite appreciate the desire of the right hon. Gentleman not to extend the opportunities of winning a large sum of money as a prize in a lottery, but the prizes of £30,000 in the Irish Sweepstake are a totally different proposition from the prizes of £5 £10 or £15 suggested here; and the right hon. Gentleman should also remember that the class of entertainment is strictly limited, by the terms of the Clause. Such draws as are referred to are those held at bazaars, sales of work, fetes and other similar entertainments, and they may continue for only one to four days. As my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) has said, thousands of people who are supporters of a cause for which a sale of work or fete is arranged will gladly purchase a ticket for the sake of the cause, and are not at all concerned about any money prizes that may be offered. The case put by my hon. Friend is that in which the wife of a collier, a railwayman or any artisan, purchases tickets for an event but not primarily for the prize which they are likely to obtain. The Clause definitely states that the draw is not to be a primary part of the entertainment but only incidental. It will be far better, in the sort of case I have in mind, that instead of articles which would have no utility to persons who succeeded in the draw, there should be money prizes, such money being limited by the terms of the Clause. Prize winners could then spend their money to better use. We are not putting a lot of pressure behind the Amendment, but we think that as the figure is strictly
limited, and may be halved or divided into three prizes, the sum concerned would be infinitesimal, and one which the right hon. Gentleman might agree to without conceding the principle of national lotteries or Irish sweepstakes.

8.37 p.m.

Mr. PETHERICK: I think the Home Secretary is a little rigid in some of these matters, and particularly in this one. I cannot see that there is any grave moral temptation in being allowed to gain a money prize instead of a sucking pig. The ordinary man in the street cannot see what difference there is between a prize in kind and a price of 15s. or £1 in cash. The Home Secretary based his opposition to the Amendment largely, I understand, upon the allegation that it might be possible for professional lottery promoters to creep in if the Amendment were accepted. I do not think there is any danger of that. The amount is limited in the Amendment to £20, and the promoters and supporters of it have stated that they are not wedded to that figure and are willing to make it £10 or £5. I appeal to the Home Secretary to see whether he cannot possibly accept it in this small case. This is the reason for the attitude of the ordinary man in the street, not only towards this little provision of the Bill, but to a great many other parts of it as well.

Amendment negatived.

8.39 p.m.

Mr. G. BRAITHWAITE: I beg to move, in page 19, line 19, to leave out paragraph (c).
This Amendment raises a point very similar to that which has just been placed before the Committee on the previous Amendment by hon. Gentlemen of the Opposition. We have reached a very interesting stage of the Bill; the Committee is engaged in making the church bazaar respectable. What is improper across the counter of the Post Office is to be a perfectly proper and moral proceeding in the church bazaar. How the country will receive this latest effort on on the part of the Home Secretary remains to be seen. It is at least our duty to make this Clause workable, and my Amendment relates to the conditions touching the small lotteries exempted by the Bill. It will be found that paragraph (c) provides that tickets shall not be sold except on the premises where the
entertainment—for example, a sale of work—is held. It is rather like saying that intoxicating liquor has to be consumed on the premises. Similarly—and this is one of the chief points of the Clause—the result may not be declared except on the premises and during the entertainment. That describes the attitude of the Government to these small lotteries. We have spent a great deal of time this afternoon preventing the results of large enterprises such as the Irish sweepstake being available to the general public, but we are now about to say that at the church bazaar, all that Parliament desires is that the tickets shall be bought on the premises, and that the competition shall be conducted, and the swag distributed to the faithful sometime before the final benediction.
Why should the raffle, the draw, the bazaar or the sale of work be restricted in this way? Those interesting functions are not entirely confined to Conservative garden fêtes. An hon. Gentleman opposite gave some interesting examples of the prizes that might be won, such as a shaving stick by a man with a long beard. Such things take place at all times in entertainments of this kind, and it is the practice at such functions, as I think hon. Gentlemen with experience will agree, to have the tickets printed and distributed and sold beforehand by the organisers of the bazaar, or whatever it may be. I see no reason why that should be prohibited by the Bill. To do so would act as a great handicap upon those who are trying to raise funds for some worthy cause, whether it be to advance the cause of Conservatism or Socialism, or to repair the organ. [Interruption.] It very badly needs repair on the Opposition Benches. A great deal depends upon the tickets being available before the entertainment commences.
I can see no reason why the result should have to be declared before the entertainment comes to an end. The Home Secretary cannot really feel that people who gather on these excellent occasions to support their churches or chapels become, at the moment when the final benediction is pronounced, the doors are open and they go out into the night to mix with their fellow men, exposed to all kinds of moral dangers and
vices. It is not necessary that the result shall be declared before the entertainment actually comes to an end. The Home Secretary has decided that this kind of innocent competition and lottery shall be legalised and no longer restricted by the law of the land. Why must these restrictions be placed upon them? My hon. Friends and myself are very anxious to find out what is in the mind of the Government.

Mr. LOGAN: Is not that a problem?

Mr. BRAITHWAITE: It is a problem which my hon. Friends and myself have for many weary weeks been making an effort to solve, and we have not been altogether unsuccessful. One of the excellent maxims of those who attend these church bazaars is, "If at first you don't succeed, try, try, try again." That is what we are doing now, but it is a little hard that those who go to church functions and have before them these excellent maxims are somehow unsafe unless they are within the four walls. The space on the Opposition Benches which represents the Liberal party will excuse me if I am wrong fn believing that a good many of their supporters might resent very strongly the suggestion that these entertainments can only be legalised within such narrow confines.
The limitations will handicap many very excellent efforts which are made in Sheffield on behalf of causes which we all support, irrespective of our political colour. It will greatly handicap them if tickets cannot be printed and distributed before the function takes place. I do not think it is necessary that the result should be declared on the spot. I think it might well be published in the local newspapers, as is generally the case. I hope that local newspapers are not going to be prohibited from publishing the results of church bazaars as well as of the Irish Sweepstake, or we may see Lord Rothermere's Paris edition of the "Daily Mail" publishing the result of a bazaar in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Pike). However that may be, this Amendment, if it does nothing more, will give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of explaining what is in his mind in connection with what I can only regard as a rather extraordinary Clause in the Bill.

8.46 p.m.

Captain HEILGERS: My hon. Friend has moved this Amendment in a spirit rather, shall I say, of levity, as a dinnertime entertainment, but I feel that it is really one of the most important Amendments to Part II of the Bill. I myself have three Amendments down just after this one, which are all supported by the British Hospitals Association. They do not go quite so far as this Amendment, but are only concerned with the question of the sale of tickets before the day, and it is to that point that I would ask the Committee to devote their attention. It is impossible for any hospital to carry on any fete unless it is able to sell tickets before the day, and in this Clause fetes are specifically named as a form of entertainment in connection with which lotteries may be permitted. Perhaps I might give an illustration of what I mean.
For some time before I came to the House, I was concerned with the running of a very big public fete for the benefit of our local hospital. To make it a success it was necessary to attract from 15,000 to 20,000 people. In order to attract that number of people. we had to put on a good display—something that would get the people there—and we went "all out" to attract people. For instance, we used to get the musical rides from Olympia; and the long and short of it was that we spent £500 or £600 before the day of the fete. We went on to the ground with those expenses. If it was a, wet day, we were "done down," and the hospital was out of pocket to the extent of the £500 or £600 that we had spent before the day. We could, of course, have gone in for wet-weather insurance, and we tried that, but it did not work; it rained all round the particular ground where we held the fete, but we did not get enough on the ground to get the insurance. The only way in which we could make sure that the hospital would not be out of pocket was to sell enough tickets before the day to counterbalance our expenses. That we used to succeed in doing by having draws or lotteries and selling tickets before the day. Then, alas, about three years ago, the police authorities came down on us and stopped us selling those tickets. The result was that the hospital fete came to an end; we could not possibly afford to allow the hospital to run the risk of spending £500
or £600 and losing everything if there was a wet day.
I admit frankly that my own hospital, of which I am speaking, is financially sound, and that is rather an argument against me, but, on the other hand, it is the object of every hospital to give better treatment, and there is no end to the amount of better treatment that any hospital can give; but it cannot be given if there is less money with which to give it. As a result of the police stopping our selling tickets before the day, and the consequent abandonment of the hospital fete, our hospital lost something between £1,500 and £2,000 a year. If this Clause becomes the law of the land, it will be impossible to revive that hospital fete, and our own hospital will find itself—and this applies to many hospitals throughout the country—with a debt of at least £1,000, and probably nearly £2,000. Therefore, I would ask the Home Secretary to consider very carefully whether he is not doing a grave injustice to our hospitals by not giving them a chance at any rate to sell tickets before the day, and to hold the usual harmless hospital fete which has gone on in most counties near most towns for many years.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Before wasting time on this particular Amendment, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, assuming that the present Amendment is lost, that will affect in any way the proposed new Clause—(Exemption of small lotteries organised for the benefit of charitable objects)—which we have later on the Paper. I should like to make one or two observations on that Clause, all more or less relative to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Captain Heilgers), but I have no desire to make those observations now if, when moving or supporting the proposed new Clause, we can feel that the passage of Clause 22 in its present form will not debar the acceptance of our Clause.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Perhaps I might intervene for a moment. I can, of course, give no opinion as to the acceptance of the Clause which the hon. Member has mentioned, but it was my intention to call it.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am much obliged, Captain Bourne, for that information.
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will now tell us, when he either accepts or rejects the Amendment, whether its rejection or acceptance will have any relation to the forthcoming proposed new Clause.

8.54 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I think that perhaps I can best answer that question by saying what I have to say on this proposal. The fact is that in all this problem we are faced with the difficulty that we are legalising certain practices which are at present illegal. That obviously has some attractions and advantages, and we have tried, in dealing with this problem, to permit the carrying on of raffles and small lotteries, whether in aid of charities or bazaars, for whatever purpose the bazaar may be promoted. But of course at the back of it all there is the over-riding feature that the Committee has decided that it is not going to have large lotteries, and it is therefore essential to exercise the greatest care against allowing anything which will turn these small modest lotteries into something very much larger.
Something has been said about the necessity for selling tickets before the entertainment. That is a practice which some of us are acquainted with, and it has not been interfered with. The whole point is how far you are going to allow these matters to be exploited by people who really are not concerned with the genuine object. Nothing, as far as I know, will interfere with permission to people living in a hospital or connected with it, or those under Clause 22, a club or an organisation, to promote a private lottery. There is nothing, if the conditions in Clause 22 are complied with, to prevent that taking place at a bazaar. The great mass of raffles, which are well known to people who attend bazaars, are genuine. The objects that are sold are so large that they cannot be bought by an individual and, therefore, they are raffled. They ought to be raffled and dealt with at the bazaar, whether it is a one or a three-day bazaar. The practice has been to draw the raffle before the bazaar is closed. But while I am most anxious to see that these small lotteries and bazaar raffles shall not be interfered with as long as they remain upon that basis, we cannot ignore the fact that there are unscrupulous people who are
prepared to exploit these concerns, whether church bazaars or ordinary raffles. It is because of that that I have to take these measures. I have tried to explain what I think can be done, and I am afraid that I cannot go further.

8.59 p.m.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: In view of the Home Secretary's statement, I think I may have to reconsider my decision about selecting the new Clause in the name of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Captain Heilgers). I am in a little difficulty in the matter. I was under the impression that the decision of the Committee last night was against State lotteries. If that impression be correct, obviously a lottery on a much restricted scale would not necessarily be involved in that decision and the new Clause would be in order. If, however, we are going to treat the discussion on this Amendment on the assumption that the Committee has decided against everything except comparatively small lotteries, obviously, if the discussion takes place on this part of the Bill, the new Clause cannot be moved.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The new Clause is of a very special character. There are special conditions laid down which confine the suggested small lottery to the neighbourhood, and I think the conditions laid down are such that it can be divorced either from the very large lottery referred to in the decision Last night or the very small bazaar lotteries dealt with in Clause 22. My submission, therefore, is that, while the right hon. Gentleman may make his mind up on the Amendment now—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Perhaps I may deal with the hon. Member's point now. The right hon. Gentleman has pointed out that the objection to leaving out paragraph (c) is that it might enable a thing to become a lottery on what I may call a large scale. If that be the ground on which this Amendment is debated, obviously we cannot admit a new Clause which would in point of fact legalise a lottery on a larger scale in which tickets were sold beforehand. I have to protect the position of the Chair. I have been in very considerable difficulty over the matter. I have no desire to restrain Debate, but I am obviously in
a difficulty from the point of view of order. Whether it might be more convenient to take the discussion on this Amendment or on the new Clause I am in the hands of the Committee, but we cannot have the discussion twice.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: That is exactly why I did not wish to occupy time by speaking now and speaking again on the new Clause. I should prefer to leave the discussion on the new Clause until the new Clause arrives and allow the Home Secretary to deal with Clause 21, which only deals with bazaars and fetes and other small entertainments, while the new Clause applies to a totally different proposition. If the Home Secretary is going to leave the specialised suggestion in the new Clause until it is reached, perhaps there is no point in discussing it further now.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the Committee would prefer to take the discussion on the new Clause, I suggest that we dispose of this Amendment at once, and I will call the new Clause. It is obvious that, if we continue this discussion, we shall be restricted on the new Clause simply on the ground of repetition.

Mr. G. BRAITHWAITE: Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I asked leave to withdraw the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman has made it clear that the Government are not going to accept it, and we might have a more useful discussion on the new Clause.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.4 p.m.

Sir P. DAWSON: I beg to move, in page 19, line 31, at the end, to add:
(4) Any lottery promoted and held at a fair attended by travelling showmen at which the prize (other than a money prize) does not exceed five shillings in value shall also be deemed not to be an unlawful lottery.
For hundreds of years showmen have given innocent amusement to our people, and are still doing so, and how much they are appreciated is shown by the enormous crowds that attend fairs. They always have to keep up to date and they do everything they can to amuse the public and to introduce new forms of amusement. They have raffles of various kinds and numbered programmes and things of that sort, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give favourable
consideration to this body of men who are most loyal citizens and very helpful to our people, both in the industrial regions and rural areas, where they thoroughly enjoy the innocent entertainment which these travelling showmen provide for them. The Amendment has been put down with a view to helping them to carry on their work. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will favourably consider the matter and be able to do something towards helping those people who are trying so hard to help themselves and to provide entertainment sometimes under most difficult conditions.

9.6 p.m.

Major PROCTER: I hope that the Home Secretary will consider the Amendment favourably. At the moment travelling showmen are harassed in practically every town. What is proper in one place is deemed to be improper and illegal in another. They are harassed by the Betting Acts, the Gaming Acts, and the Lottery Acts.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was in the House when I ruled somewhat earlier that the question of gaming does not, and cannot arise on this Bill. We are limited here to a very narrow line.

Major PROCTER: What I intended to say was that I hope that, on account of the harassing of these deserving people, the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment. It may be that these are the foolish amusements of the poor, but there are people who find a great deal of fun at these fairs, and at the moment it is illegal for showmen to given even a box of chocolates. I hope, therefore, that the Amendment will be accepted by the Home Secretary.

9.7 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: It is clear that this is an Amendment which I cannot accept. It is an essential feature of the small lotteries which are legalised in Clauses 21 and 22 that they are not to be promoted for private gain. As I understand the position, that is what the present proposal would mean, and if the privilege were granted to one section of the community, however excellent and laudable their object might be, there would
be no possibility of it stopping there, and in the circumstances I cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. PIKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a more open definition of the term "lottery" as used in the Amendment? I may be on a fair ground and take a chance with a ball for which I have paid 2d. —

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is exactly the kind of thing to which this Amendment cannot possibly apply.

Mr. PIKE: It is a lottery.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No, if the hon. Member will forgive me; it is gaming.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 22.—(Exemption of private lotteries.)

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 20, line 18, to leave out from "either," to the end of line 20, and to insert:
to the provision of prizes as aforesaid or to purposes which are purposes of the society or, as to part, to the provision of prizes as aforesaid and, as to the remainder, to such purposes as aforesaid.
We observe that under this provision some of the proceeds must be devoted to the purposes of the society. It does not take into account the fact that prizes may be presented by a donor, and the Amendment seeks to remedy the omission. The effect of the Amendment is that where prizes are presented gratis the proceeds of the lottery can be devoted entirely to the society for which the lottery is provided.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 21, line 3, after "money," to insert "or valuable thing."
This Amendment is consequential upon an Amendment which I have previously moved.

Amendment agreed to.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. G. BRAITHWAITE: : I beg to move, in page 21, line 6, to leave out paragraph (f).
This matter is very similar to the one which I raised on a previous Amendment on the question of the manner in which small lotteries can in future be conducted. My Amendment proposes to leave out the words:
No tickets in the lottery shall be sent through the post.
These words apply to the club or factory lotteries, which will be exempt and lawful when the Bill becomes an Act. I am certain that hon. Members in all parts of the Committee know the kind of lottery about which I am now talking. It is the type of lottery in a works or a club very often for the purpose of relaying the cricket pitch for the following season, and for matters connected with sport of one kind or another and the raising of funds for that purpose. I think that I know what the hon. Gentleman is going to say in reply to the Amendment. I have no doubt that he will rise once more and tell us that it is his duty as Home Secretary to see that the Little Puddleton Cricket Club does not fall into the hands of some unscrupulous sweepstake promoter. But whether he says that or not, I would suggest to him that there can be no real objection to tickets for these small factory and club lotteries being sent through the post.
I cannot imagine that my experience is unique. There must be hon. Members in all parts of the Committee who frequently receive applications from excellent clubs and societies in various parts of the country, in their own divisions and elsewhere, asking them to help in some effort which they are making on behalf of their club. Hon. Members, being kept busy here, generally write back, "Yes, send me a couple of tickets. Here is a postal order for those tickets." It is often done, I think, by hon. Members who are anxious to help sporting organisations of one sort or another. It will be a real hardship if Parliament is to say to all these small people who depend upon these efforts for the sustenance of their club—very often their budget will not balance without this sort, of thing—"everybody who takes a ticket in your lottery for the maintenance of your club has to attend and buy it from your secretary in person." Suppose a member of the club wants to take a, ticket in the club's sweepstake on the St. Leger or the Derby, I really do not see why he
should not write to the secretary of the club and ask him to send the ticket by post.
The right hon. Gentleman, when he introduced the Bill on the Second Reading, told us how disappointed he would be if the country regarded this Measure as grandmotherly. Really, I think that if this sort of provision is to remain in the Bill the right hon. Gentleman must be prepared for great disappointments rather than great expectations. He will find that all these working men's clubs regard a restriction of this kind—there is no better word than "grandmotherly" for such a proposal—as an irritating restriction hampering very many excellent little organisations, and I am quite sure that hon. Members in all parts of the Committee will agree with me that the working men who get up these lotteries and organise these small sweepstakes are the very last people in the world to fall into the hands of unscrupulous persons whatever that may mean. Those who run a cricket club or working men's club are the last people, in the world to allow visitors to come in and interfere with their domestic affairs. They are very anxious to keep their own organisation under the control of their own members and I suggest that if the Government were to delete this Subsection and make it possible for those who wish to support the club to apply for tickets by post the right hon. Gentleman would not be opening the gates of Hades particularly wide. I do not think that the members of the clubs would be entirely demoralised or that the people who bought the tickets would be demoralised. It would have a beneficial result and would give the clubs some hope that Parliament is going to conduct itself more in a human manner than we have done since we started discussing Part II of the Bill.

9.17 p.m.

Sir W. WAYLAND: I should like to draw attention to two points. What will be the position in the case of a charitable ball where each ticket is numbered and it is intimated to the person who purchases it that a draw will be held and prizes given during the night of the ball? Thousands of such tickets are sent by post and I have no doubt that the Home Secretary has bought a number in his time. This Sub-section will hit very hard
boy scout and similar organisations, where usually a programme is sold for one penny and sent by post, with the intimation that a draw will be held on the ground on the appointed day. It is usually stated that the numbers would be placed in a receptacle and that the draw would take place during the entertainment. If the right hon. Gentleman does not agree to the Amendment it will be impossible to sell any of the programmes in that way and to have poll cards or entertainment cards printed and posted, with a prize given to the lucky numbers on the night of the entertainment. Perhaps he has not thought how hard this will hit hospitals and organisations like that of the boy scouts.

9.19 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: The Amendment raises the issue whether the post shall be used for the transfer of tickets in lotteries. Here, again, we come up against the practical and administrative problem. If we permit small lotteries to send tickets by post it is very difficult to see how we are going to distinguish between the small lottery and the large one.

Mr. PIKE: Put the price on the ticket.

Sir J. GILMOUR: That would not meet the case. If I understand the question put to me by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Sir W. Wayland) with regard to a charity ball, it would be illegal. With regard to the question of the boy scouts, here again we are up against the problem. So long as the small lottery is limited to a branch of the boy scouts in a particular district, that is one thing, but the moment we permit—here comes in the question of the post—the boy scout organisation as a whole to use the post to send these things round the country to every branch of the boy scouts, that will be a large lottery and that is illegal. My duty is to stop that sort of thing whether it is done by a pure schemer or by any bona fide organisation. However inconvenient it may be it is impossible as an administrative matter to differentiate in this way between the small and the large lottery. I have come deliberately to the conclusion that from the administrative point of view we cannot allow the post to be used by either party.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 23.—(Amendment of the law with respect to, and saving for, lotteries of art unions.)

9.22 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 21, line 26, at the end, to insert:
() In the case of an Art Union constituted under a deed or other instrument, not being a charter, the power of annulment referred to in the foregoing subsection may be exercised also by the President of the Board of Trade or, in his absence, by a Secretary of State, if, in the opinion of the President or Secretary of State, as the case may be, it is expedient. having regard to the circumstances, that immediate action be taken in the matter.
This Amendment relates to the position of the Board of Trade whose duty it is to regularise the terms on which Art Unions conduct their draws and to withdraw the authorisation if the Art Union is not being properly conducted. The Amendment is to enable that to be done more expeditiously.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 24.—(Restriction on certain, prize competitions.)

9.23 p.m.

Mr. GUY: I beg to move, in page 21, line 41, at the end, to insert:
(c) any other competition for which any form of entrance fee other than the purchase and return of a single coupon or entry-form is required.
The purpose of this Amendment is to rule out certain competitions run mainly by newspapers which are, in effect, lotteries. It will be well known to the Committee that many of these competitions although apparently competitions involving a certain measure of skill are merely lotteries. Clause 24 provides that a certain element of skill in such a competition shall be legal, and, in so doing, the Bill follows the recommendations of the Royal Commission, set forth in page 156 of the report, but in my opinion the Bill does not go quite far enough, because although the Clause rules out any competition which does not contain a certain element of skill, it does not adopt the recommendation of the Royal Commission that there shall be only a single entry and that there shall be no entrance money. The point of this Amendment is to rule out the entrance fee and to make it legitimate only to send a single entry
unaccompanied by any money. The reason for that is that one of the essential features of a lottery is a fee. If you rule out the entrance fee the remaining feature of the lottery will disappear and the newspaper competitions will revert to their original character of competitions involving a substantial measure of skill quite apart from any lottery.

Captain CROOKSHANK: In this Clause the Government are not engaged in regulating newspaper competitions generally. We are trying to regulate in some way those that contain a substantial element of gambling, where there is really no skill at all and they become in the nature of a large lottery. There are two ways of dealing with that problem. There is either the way laid down in the Bill, to make unlawful competitions depending on forecasts of future events and those which do not involve a substantial degree of skill, or the alternative which the hon. Member has in mind, namely, the prohibition of entrance fees and a limit en prize money. It so happens that we have chosen the first method. If the hon. Gentleman's Amendment were accepted, it would add to our criteria, which we already think adequate to deal with the problem. It would add further restrictions ruling out entrance fees to competitions, so that competitions of skill might be stopped. I think the Committee will agree that we are doing all that is necessary in this Clause in tightening up conditions governing newspaper lotteries. The Amendment might have the effect of making it impossible to compete in competitions in which there was a substantial degree of skill.

Mr. GUY: In view of the arguments put forward, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Miss WARD: I beg to move, in page 22, line 9, at the end, to add:
(3) During the period of four years after the passing of this Act nothing in this Section shall prevent the conduct in or through a newspaper, or in connection with a trade or business, or the sale of an article to the public of a competition such as is referred to in paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of this Section by a body corporate established for a charitable purpose, which satisfies the Secretary of State that the greater part of its income during the period of five years prior to the passing of this Act was derived from prize competitions.
The object of the Amendment is to exempt from this Clause any body corporate which has existed for five years, and which has been in the habit of running competitions for charitable purposes. In order that the object of the Clause which has been introduced by the Tight hon. Gentleman into the Bill shall be protected, it is suggested that no body corporate shall be considered unless it has been in operation for five years prior to the passing of this Bill. To particularise, hon. Members may be aware that there is an association known as the British Charities Association, which has been operating over a period of 10 years running competitions which may be described as competitions of skill for the purpose entirely of raising funds for hospitals. These competitions have been very popular and they have been very efficiently run. The promotors of the competitions, through the British Charities Association, feel that these competitions would come within the meaning of the words "a substantial degree of skill." Another point the British Charities Association feel is that, though the competitions have had to advertise in newspapers for the purpose of attracting entrants, that has not been for the private gain of newspapers but in order to provide money for hospitals, and has also been valuable publicity for the hospitals. Therefore, the advertising of these competitions has really served a double purpose.
It is not felt there is any chance of the competitions, if they are carried on, being outside the law, but hon. Members will appreciate that as soon as the Bill is passed many competitions which have been run by newspapers and charitable associations will fear that they may not come within the terms of the law, until there has been a test case in court to define what is really a substantial test of skill. As they will readily understand, the British Charities Association have no funds available and do not feel that they will be able to run the risk of being brought to court. They do not wish to have to hold up competitions until such time as a. test case has been tried and we have a legal interpretation of "a substantial test of skill." The real object of the Amendment therefore is to make sure that we shall be in a position that will not involve a break in the continuity of the competitions, which
have raised a quarter of a million pounds for hospitals.
I fear my right hon. Friend will put forward the difficulty of machinery in achieving the object of the Amendment. If, however, one puts the onus on the body corporate to apply for a certificate from the Home Office and put forward credentials that will prove that the body has been operating over a number of years prior to the introduction of the Bill, the work of the Home Office should not necessarily be increased to such an extent that more machinery will be needed. I hope, therefore, that, in view of the very hard work that hospitals have in these difficult times to raise funds to carry out their work, my right hon. Friend will respond to this appeal. If we have to break the continuity of these competitions, as will be readily understood we may lose a large number of clients. I hope it may be possible to persuade the Home Office to do something in the matter.

9.35 p.m.

Captain CROOKSHANK: The hon. Member has put up a strong case. Naturally, any case which is based on the needs of a hospital will appeal to every Member of the Committee. I did not quite understand from her statement whether the competition to which she referred did or did not involve a substantial degree of skill. We have just passed a provision that a competition to be lawful must entail a substantial degree of skill. If the competition to which she refers does, it is all right. On the other hand, the suggestion that, although no skill is involved, that it is a glorified lottery, this Committee, this Parliament, should allow the competition to go on just because it has already gone on for more than five years, is quite out of the question and, therefore, I cannot accept the Amendment.

Miss WARD: In view of the statement of the Under-Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. J. JONES: The usual Tory custom.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.37 p.m.

Mr. G. BRAITHWAITE: I beg to move, in page 22, line 9, at the end, to add:
(3) Proceedings under this section shall not be instituted except by, or by direction of, the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The Amendment raises a point of substance. As the law stands, and as it will stand if the Bill becomes an Act without the addition of this Amendment, it will be left to the police authority in each area to decide whether proceedings shall he instituted in relation to a particular type of competition. This has led to many unfair anomalies. The Home Secretary will remember that one night last winter, on the Motion for the Adjournment, we raised a question about a situation which had arisen under which newspapers published in Sheffield and Manchester were prosecuted, fined and compelled to abandon certain competitions they were holding, and that at the same time these newspapers were being prosecuted London newspapers on sale in Sheffield and Manchester contained precisely similar competitions. The Home Secretary will remember that it was not until considerable protests had been made in this House and outside that the Metropolitan and City Police issued a warning to the London newspapers to abandon these competitions. That was an unsatisfactory incident, and I am sure hon. Members will not condone a situation in which restrictions are placed upon newspapers published locally and at the same time newspapers published in London and on sale in these towns do precisely the same thing for which the local newspaper is prosecuted. If we pass the Amendment we shall be doing useful work in dealing with such anomalies. It is unfair that the administration of the law can only be corrected if these sort of prosecutions take place.
There is, I think, a strong case for such prosecutions being instituted by a central authority, and the proper person is the Director of Public Prosecutions. The hon. Member opposite jjust now made the interjection that it was the usual Tory custom. It would be more correct to say it is the usual House of Commons custom in Committee. If an hon. Member wishes to draw attention to such anomalies for the purpose of getting a declaration from the Minister there is no reason why we should tramp through the Division Lobbies on every small point of detail, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman
will welcome the opportunity, even if he cannot accept the Amendment, of making a statement which may be of some value.

9.42 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I support the Amendment more for the purpose of getting a reply from the Home Secretary than in the hope that the Amendment will be accepted. In Clause 20 there is a provision that the prosecution can only be instituted by the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Home Secretary said that where the Director of Public Prosecutions was not involved it was a question of fact, whereas in those cases where the Director of Public Prosecutions must institute proceedings it is a question of opinion. Under Clause 24 it will always be a matter of opinion, not a question of fact. It will be a question of the substantial degree of skill. Anyone who sets out to determine that has a difficult task. Clearly it is not a task which should be left to the superintendent of police, and as newspapers are involved it must in the nature of things be a very delicate question of opinion. Therefore, it is desirable that the Director of Public Prosecutions should institute the proceedings. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has a substantial reply or that he will accept the Amendment.

9.43 p.m.

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): The hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) has sought to relate this proposal to the provisions we have already passed in Clause 20. It is suggested that the Director of Public Prosecutions should be responsible for the prosecutions under Clause 24. It must always be a question of degree, as to whether the offence is of sufficient importance or of such a nature as to require the exercise of special discretion and to justify the Director of Public Prosecutions being brought in. After all, his office is in London, he has not offices all over the country, in Manchester, Birmingham and in Newcastle. It is difficult for him to look into matters which are proceeding in distant parts of the country except through agents, and that difficulty of course has to be met in cases of great seriousness, in murder cases and certain crimes under the Larceny Act, in which the Director of Public Prosecutions normally undertakes the prosecution. But there are a variety of offences which
are prosecuted normally by the police. It will be quite impossible for the Director of Public Prosecutions to undertake the supervision of the multiplicity of offences which are committed from day to day, and the Committee will realise that if we attempted to put that responsibility on him it would be a pure farce.
The Director of Public Prosecutions, as I know, for he acts under my superintendence as the Statute establishing his office provides, does personally give his attention to the duties which he has to perform. It is very remarkable how, since the office was instituted, successive Directors have managed to keep personal control of the matters committed to their charge. He is not a mere figure-head who delegates the duties of his office to subordinate officials about whose activities he knows little or nothing. He is in constant touch with the Attorney-General, and in any matter of difficulty or special responsibility, he sees the Attorney-General and receives such advice and help as the Attorney-General is able to give him. In relation to these matters it would mean that he would have to delegate his responsibilities to some agent in another town, or the case would have to be conducted by some subordinate official in his department in London, and his personal supervision, still less his superintendence by the Attorney-General of the moment, would be quite impossible. This is a question of degree. The view which the Government take is that the offences under Clause 24 are not of sufficient importance to warrant bringing them under the personal direction of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Automatically.

The ATTORNEY- GENERAL: Yes, automatically. I am obliged to my hon. Friend. It is always possible for the Director, either acting himself and assuming the Attorney-General's authority or by the authority of the Attorney-General, to take up any prosecution in the public interest. Nor are these offences which require the exercise of any special discretion. The other day we put the Director of Public Prosecutions into the Bill because the Committee was anxious in a particular class of offence that that should be done. It
was thought that the decision to institute proceedings was one of some delicacy and difficulty and that the Director ought to be the responsible authority. I hope that what I have said is sufficient to satisfy the Committee. Generally speaking, if the police prosecute in matters of this sort and a decision is given, the practice is followed and adopted all over the country. A well-known instance was that in Sheffield of a football competition some five or six years ago, when a decision was obtained and was acted upon by police and newspapers all over the country. A decision of authority obtains currency very quickly and becomes universally adopted.
As to Clause 20, as I have said the decision in these cases is a question of degree. The Clause, the Government thought, was the other side of the line. They thought that the offences mentioned in Sub-section (3) were sufficiently difficult or of sufficient importance to justify the bringing in of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I do not think it will be possible to attempt any other defence of the decision to bring in the Director in one place and to leave him out in another, than that which I have mentioned. Considering the matter as carefully as they could, the Government thought that in one ease it was right and in the other case not necessary to bring in the Director. The principle is that it is undesirable to multiply the duties of the Director, having regard to the great public advantage which has been so far secured of getting his personal attention to matters that come under his control.

9.51 p.m.

Mr. G. BRAITHWAITE: I may save time if I at once thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his statement. My chief reason for moving the Amendment was the delay which took place in the Sheffield case to which he referred—very considerable delay before action was take to stop the London newspapers from being on sale in that city at a time when the Sheffield newspapers were undergoing prosecution. But after having listened to the Attorney-General I am satisfied that there will no such delay in the future, and, that being the case, I think the Amendment has served its purpose, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

9.52 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I wish to draw attention to what seems to me to be one of the most extraordinary Clauses in the Bill. From the start it has been my object not to hold up the Bill for the sake of holding it up. I have, however, been very emphatic on one or two points, very largely points of omission from the Bill rather than inclusion in it. Clause 24 is extraordinary in that it sets out to make unlawful newspaper competitions unless there is a substantial degree of skill exercised by the competitors, and then it states:
Provided that nothing in this Subsection with respect to the conducting of prosecutions in connection with a trade or business shall apply in relation to pari-mutuel or pool betting operations.
It seems to me to be extraordinary to say in the Clause that it is unlawful to run newspaper competitions, which in comparison with football pool operations are a mere incident and which affect very few people, while the football pool, which the Home Secretary definitely legalises and gives his blessing to, is embodied in the same Clause. Really the right hon. Gentleman ought to offer some explanation. I know he told us that the reason why football pools were not dealt with was that they were not dealt with. He admitted that they were included in the original Bill, but that that provision was withdrawn. That was the explanation. It struck me as a very funny explanation. At any rate it did not involve the right hon. Gentleman in any long controversy. The explanation was so simple that I was aghast and could not say another word about it. But I think it is due to the House that the right hon. Gentleman should tell us how he can justify the exclusion of newspaper competitions and in the same Clause give a second blessing to football pools, the. most extraordinary form of gambling and legalised swindling in this country. The right hon. Gentleman is well served in almost every other particular by his Department, but I am not sure that he is being very well served in this particular. I cannot imagine that he is acquainted with the cases that have been taken to the Edinburgh courts. I am sure that if the right lion. Gentleman were aware
of all the facts connected with the pool organisations he would not for one moment dare to give a second blessing to this sort of legalised swindling.

9.55 p.m.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Is it necessary that this provision should be retained? Cannot the Government refrain from making any reference of this kind at all? It is a very peculiar thing for the Government to ask this Committee to give even a qualified blessing to this sort of thing. I do not wish to divide against the Clause but I would point out that this is the first time that Parliament has ever been asked to give its sanction, even in a qualified form, to something which we regard as a financial ramp and one of the worst features Of the gambling system in this country. There is a new Clause later on the Paper—which I understand is not to be called—seeking to set up some system of control if no legislation is possible on this matter. If that new Clause is not to be called I would ask the Home Secretary to consider wrether the Bill will be any the worse if this Clause is left out. Why should he ask us to give even a qualified sanction to something which in our view only calls for the condemnation of this Committee?

9.56 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: I had an Amendment down dealing with this matter which has not been called and I do not wish to refer to that but I am at a loss to understand why the legitimacy of competitions conducted by newspapers and other concerns should be questioned, having regard to the great concessions which are being made to betting pools and other combines of that description. Surely the same treatment should be given to all. It is beyond my understanding why the treatment which is extended in the one case should not apply all round. To say in effect that pari mutuel and pool betting is to operate but that forecasts in newspapers and other things of that kind are not to be allowed does not appear to be equitable. I should like the Minister to explain why the great interests concerned in these forms of betting are not to be touched although they are engaged in what is, I think, the worst form of betting I know. Why should they receive exceptional treatment? I do not wish to impute anything at all. I could not prove any imputation if I did make one. All I
can say is that we as a Committee are in a quandary regarding this matter because we have had no explanation of it. How can the Minister have the effrontery to ask this Committee to take away this Tight from the newspapers and others and to allow these gigantic organisations to continue to operate unchecked? If there is an explanation we ought to hear it.

9.58 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: The necessity for mentioning this problem of pool betting in this Clause arises following upon the decision which the Government took and also upon the decision at which the Committee arrived. Whatever one may think about the evils of pool betting, the fact is that it is not being dealt with in this Bill and in order that the terms of the Bill may be made clear to those who have to read it and to operate it afterwards it is essential that we should put in these words here. That is the only reason. I have done my best to explain the reasons why this matter was dropped out and I am afraid that nothing I can say now will add to the effect of what I have already said on that subject. I can only repeat that we are not dealing here with that very difficult and very serious problem.

9.59 p.m.

Viscountess ASTOR: Why not? We tried hard the other day to get an answer to that question out of the right hon. Gentleman and once more I would put it to him. I know that there are hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Front Bench who do not know why the Government are not dealing with this matter. I am not giving them away but I know that even some people in the Government are surprised that the Government are not dealing with this problem. We know that the Home Secretary is a bold and courageous man. I am not saying of him that he is going down to history because I think very few people are going down to history, but even if he is not, I think he ought to tell us why the Government are not dealing with what he himself has described as "this very difficult and very serious problem."

10.0 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: I confess I could not understand what the Home Secretary said just now. I gathered his answer to be that he was not dealing with these matters in the Bill because he was not dealing with them, and, because he was
not dealing with them, it was necessary to include these words. But surely in this Clause he is dealing with these matters and is making a definite provision in regard to them.

10.1 p.m.

Mr. PALING: I have heard some defences offered from that Box but if one can flatter the Home Secretary by describing his statement as a defence, I have never heard one quite like it before. I have listened carefully to the discussions on this Bill and the supposed defence which the right hon. Gentleman put up on this point, both on a previous occasion and again to-night, is the most amazing I have heard since I have been a Member of the House of Commons. In the last part of this Clause pari mutuel and pool betting are mentioned and definitely excluded. Surely we are not asking too much when we ask to be told why that is so. The Minister simply says that he has found it necessary to put in these words and that is all he has to say about it. Is the reason so bad that the right hon. Gentleman will not, or dare not, tell it to the Committee? I do not care what the reason may be but I submit that the Committee has a right to hear the reason and also to have a much better defence of this Clause than the right hon. Gentleman has given and I hope he will face the situation whether it is pleasant or unpleasant.

The CHAIRMAN: I must remind the Committee that it is quite contrary to our practice that a subject which has already been debated and decided should again be debated on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. PALING: I was under the impression that I was asking from the right hon. Gentleman something which has certainly not been said in these Debates up to the present.

10.4 p.m.

Mr. J. JONES: I was under the impression in my innocence that the Government in this Bill were going to deal with betting, sweepstakes and lotteries and cut the Gordian Knot in regard to this whole question. I thought that when the National Government had gone out of existence—as I hope it shortly will—everything in the garden would be lovely as regards the question of gambling. But what do we find here? Under
their aegis a new form of gambling more insidious than all the others is to come into operation. This system of pool betting is worse than all the other systems that went before it, and now the Government say they cannot deal with it, and that if we carry on under certain restrictions, the meaning of which we do not know, the Public Prosecutor will not be called in, but the local police will have power to deal with the matter. I suggest that this is only playing with the problem.
You are legalising a form of gambling which is worse than all the other forms put together, and although I am not a kill-joy nor a spoil-sport, I hope that eventually some Government will have the courage to face the whole issue and allow us to face up to the gambling issue. A man in my constituency at a street corner, putting a shilling on a horse, is looked upon as a potential criminal, but if he is rich enough, he can go to Throgmorton Street and buy shares, and he is not a gambler; he is a gentleman. I am against this thing altogether. If we are going to deal with gambling, let us deal with it all round and not place one gambler in a privileged position as compared with another. I thought this Bill was to deal with all gamblers alike, but evidently that is not the case. The new gamblers will get off, but the old gamblers will be looked upon more or less as criminals before they are tried. I shall support the more respectable of my comrades and go into the Lobby in favour of the Amendment, to say that if we introduce anti-gambling legislation, we should treat all gamblers alike.

10.7 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary should give some more effectual answer to this point than he has done. It is no use simply saying, "We did not mean to deal with it, and we are not going to deal with it, and it is not convenient, so we do not put it in, and we shall carry out our Clause, and, if you do not like it, we shall ring the bell and bring in our majority." That is not the way to deal with this matter. What is there behind it? I speak with complete ignorance of this matter. I am just an ordinary Member of the House of Commons who has never taken part in a football pool. I
have at other times, I believe, been drawn into other forms of this particular vice, notably when I have been encouraged by the Noble Lady opposite to take an interest in the running of horses on the turf, but—

The CHAIRMAN: I ruled just now that we must not repeat the Debate which we have already had on this question. Therefore, although the question was pertinent up to a certain point, I do not think I can allow it to be continued.

Mr. CHURCHILL: With very great respect, Sir Dennis, you have put the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," and the Clause contains a most important provision exempting from the scope of the Bill a particular form of gambling, which we are told is of a most vicious, injurious and detrimental character. No answer of any kind that I have heard has been given. We have to submit to that, but surely we are entitled to argue that no answer whatever has been given except that it is not convenient to deal with it. There are all sorts of suggestions that there has been some sort of deal, some sort of political pressure, that there has been voting strength behind this, that there is influence, and powerful influence, at work. Then we have to consider how that sort of talk, which I trust could all be dispersed—I hoped the Home Secretary would have dispersed it with a gesture—is all coupled up with the fine professions which the Government make, and made to us last night. We heard what a horrible thing it was for a man who had been Chancellor of the Exchequer to suggest that you might have a national sweep on the Derby. We must have some principle in this matter, and for my part one of the things which has led me to take an interest in this Measure is the smug hypocrisy which animates so many of its provisions, which on the one hand buys off people by riveting gambling in the most poisonous form on the people, and on the other hand pretends that this is an anti-gambling Bill.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I will only say one word, and I think I shall be in Order. This Clause is carrying out the decision which the Committee came to yesterday on this subject, and without it the decision of the Committee yesterday would be nullified.

10.13 p.m.

Major COLFOX: I should like to call the attention of the Home Secretary to the fact that this Bill was in print a good many days before yesterday, and therefore, if this Clause is merely carrying out the decision reached yesterday, it is in a way a form of prophecy, because when the Bill was drafted and printed nobody knew what the decision of yesterday was likely to be. It seems to me that this Clause—and not only this Clause but a good many of the other Clauses which we have passed—

shows the absolute humbug and futility of the whole of this Bill, which is not founded on any sort of principle.

The CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. and gallant Member confine his remarks to this particular Clause?

Major COLFOX: I have said all that I wish to say.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 187; Noes, 58.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Exemption of small lotteries organised for the benefit of charitable objects.)

(1) A lottery promoted in any area for the purpose of providing funds for charitable objects within such area shall be deemed not to be an unlawful lottery, but the conditions specified in the next succeeding Sub-section shall be observed in connection with the promotion and conduct of the lottery, and if any of those conditions is broken every person concerned in the promotion or conduct of the lottery shall be guilty of an offence unless he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge.

(2) The conditions referred to in the preceding Sub-sections are that—

(a) The whole proceeds of the lottery after deducting only expenses incurred for printing and stationery and the provision of prizes, and being less than one-fifth of the proceeds thereof shall be paid to such persons as may be specified by the local authority for the area in which the lottery is held for the purpose of being applied to charitable objects.
(b) None of the prizes in the lottery shall be money prizes and the total value of the prizes in any lottery shall not exceed the sum of five hundred pounds.
(c) Before selling any tickets or chances, the promoters shall by registered letter give to the chief officer of police a notice, signed by each of them, stating the purposes for which they intend to promote the lottery, and the full names and addresses of each of the promoters, together with a certificate from the local authority of the area in which the lottery is to be promoted to the effect that approval has been given thereto;
(d) Tickets or chances in the lottery shall not be sold or issued, nor shall the result of the lottery be declared except within the area approved by the local authority in respect of such lottery;
(e) No local authority shall approve the promotion of more than three lotteries under this section in any area or section of an area under its control during any calendar year;
(f) In this Sub-section the expression "local authority" means any of the following councils, that is to say, the council of a county borough, metropolitan borough, or county district, and the common council of the city of London.—[Captain Heilgers.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

11.50 p.m.

Captain HEILGERS: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause is brought forward by my hon. Friends and myself to give a chance to hospitals and reputable charities to
organise reasonably-sized lotteries, in addition to those very small lotteries provided for under this Bill in Clause 21. This new Clause has the full support and backing of the British Hospitals Association. At the present time in some areas draws are permitted by the police authorities for hospitals and other charities, but in other areas they are not. The important point is that, if this Bill be passed in its present form, then none but the smallest lotteries will be permitted to help our hospitals. I have already earlier this evening stated that if Clause 21 be not altered, the hospital in which I am interested alone will lose between £1,500 and £2,000 a year. They will lose it because they will not be allowed to sell tickets before the day of the draw. I want to draw attention to another aspect. We used to have for our hospital a Christmas draw which made between £800 and £1,000, though it has recently been discouraged by the police authorities. We are now in this position that we have to have a competition of skill. Perhaps I am arguing against my own case, but, as a result of that change, we are now losing £500 a year compared with what we used to make.
I am not saying that this Clause is perfectly drafted. Perhaps some people might desire alterations in one way or another, but I do claim that it provides greater safeguards than in any other Clause in the Bill. For instance, there is no loophole for unscrupulous promoters, about whom we have heard from the Home Secretary. The local authority has first to approve before any lottery can take place. The police have to be notified. Only three lotteries are allowed in any one area, and tickets may only be sold in that area. When you remember that the average price of tickets sold in these draws only amount to sixpence or a shilling, no one can claim that social demoralisation can be brought about by the expenditure of 1s. 6d. or 3s. a year. I rather fear that our opponents will say that as a result of any such scheme subscriptions to hospitals would fall off. When we had our Christmas draw we found not only that the subscriptions, but also the contributory scheme went up, simply because these draws gave the necessary advertisement to the needs of the hospital. No hospital can ever have enough money if it is to give the best treatment. Although I have been talk-
ing chiefly about hospitals this is a question which does not concern them only; it applies to any reputable charity, swill as St. Dunstans, the National Lifeboat Institution, or to take a very recent case the regrettable disaster at the Gresford colliery. All these objects could be aided under the new Clause; they cannot be aided under the Bill. If lotteries of a reasonable size were allowed I think that people would support them from local patriotism and would probably be drawn away from supporting the Irish sweepstake. I do not say that the new Clause is perfect but I claim and I ask favourable consideration for it on these grounds. In the new Clause we are providing a fair foundation for a reasonable scheme which will ensure the future prosperity of our hospitals. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give it his earnest consideration.

11.57 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: At this late hour I am afraid that the new Clause is not likely to get the consideration which it deserves. I only want to say that I am of the opinion that the maintenance of our hospitals should be a national duty and that they, or indeed any other charity, ought not to have to depend on lotteries or draws for their support. It is the duty of the State and municipalities to care for their own people, and with a national income of £8,000,000,000 to suppose that hospitals will be able to meet all their needs through lotteries is fantastic. There are certain areas, far removed from London, purely industrial areas, which have their own hospitals, supported locally, because of the industrial demand for a hospital. The hon. and gallant Member has referred to the hospital at Bury St. Edmunds. I live in an industrial area which has its own hospital, and every year they have a weekly event, the whole proceeds of which goes to the hospital. Some munificent friend makes them a gift. This year it was a motor car, the tickets were sold at 1s. each, and at the end of the week someone won a motor car and the hospital received £900. The tickets were issued and sold during the whole of the week of that hospital rally. I have been a member of a hospital management committee for 20 years, and I am glad to say that we have never depended on lotteries or draws for main-
tenance, but as no two districts are quite alike or adopt the same methods for assisting their hospital, I do not see any reason why a hospital which adopts this kind of method should not be allowed to do so. The hospitals have declared against big sweepstakes, but they have agreed to draws of the kind proposed in the new Clause, which are purely localised.
The new Clause provides that a certificate must first be obtained from the local authority and that the chief of police must be warned of the lottery by registered letter, and that there must be no money prizes. Almost everything that an ordinary person can think of has been arranged for and if such a lottery were permitted I do not think that it would lower the tone of the district. While I give support to the Clause I would not mind some of the figures being severely reviewed. The maximum value of prizes suggested is £500. A decent motor car can be got for £200, and I would not object to the amount of the maximum being reduced to £200. It is also suggested that three draws might be allowed in a year in any area. I think one draw a year ought to be sufficient for any one area. If the right hon. Gentleman feels that outside the big lottery there is room for small draws of a localised character held exclusively for the benefit of the local hospital, I do not think that any hon. Members would disagree with his decision. It is because I believe that the new Clause contains the germs of a possible arrangement to allow what has happened for many years to continue, that I support it. I should hesitate to lend my support to the general idea that draws and lotteries ought to be the main means of financing our hospitals and other institutions. There is, however, something in the new Clause which I should like the right hon. Gentleman to view from a sympathetic standpoint.

12.2 a.m.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Perhaps it will save time if I explain the attitude of my right hon. Friend. The hon. and gallant Member who moved the new Clause put his case rather too high, because his final words were that this was the way to ensure the future prosperity of our hospitals. I do not think that is really the case. He must
have meant to say "my hospital." It is possible that in some areas some hospitals have chosen to adopt this method to raise a considerable proportion of their funds, but it is not true to say that the future prosperity of British hospitals generally depends upon the adoption of such a Clause. The larger hospitals have hinted that they do not want any such scheme. The hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds explained that under such a Clause it would be possible to have lotteries for institutions like St. Dunstans and the National Lifeboat Institution. If there is any suggestion of that kind it means throwing the whole thing back into a financial lottery which the Committee has already rejected. We cannot agree to the Clause in itself, and I should like the Committee to look at it carefully.
The Bill says that lotteries are unlawful except two kinds, the small ones connected with fetes and bazaars and those connected with clubs and institutions. This is a proposal to introduce a third category—the charitable. I ask the Committee to see how such a scheme would word. The local authority is to decide whether there is to be a lottery three times a year. I think the pressure on the local authorities from the various charitable organisations—whatever that may mean; there is no definition; some people's charity does begin at home—will be such that they will have to decide between competing interests. One small county district might have no difficulty, because there would be one only obvious big charity in it, but the proposal does not cover only county districts. It covers councils of county boroughs and councils of metropolitan boroughs. The councils of metropolitan boroughs would find it difficult to decide between the claims of the charities in their areas. What standard must they take? If a clause like this be proposed, it is worth sifting one or two of these questions. Is the standard to be the financial status of the charity concerned? Is it the urgency of its financial need? That would involve someone going into the accounts of the charities and seeing which is the most hard up. To have a system of this kind in each area must mean different policies being adopted by different local authorities.

Captain HEILGERS: Has not the system worked pretty well in the case of
the King Edward Fund? Has not the allotment of the proceeds of that fund been done very carefully in the past, and cannot that sort of system be applied here?

Captain CROOKSHANK: That system has nothing to do with lotteries. It is based on a system of subscriptions given for the hospitals. This new Clause has nothing to do with hospitals; it refers to charitable objects. It covers a multitude of possibilities. I can imagine no way in which it can be satisfactorily dealt with if you allow every area to have its own policy. We had a discussion on an earlier Clause in regard to different policies in licensing areas, which are much larger districts than is proposed here. In that case they have only one question to deal with. Here they will have a multitude of questions. The suggestion to limit the amount of the prizes and the rest of the new Clause would have to be considered more carefully than it has been considered so far. The trouble, too, I am afraid, is that some of my hon. Friends, in their enthusiasm for their local charities—for which we must admire them—forget that in the past they have been dealing with perfectly straight organisations properly run. No doubt my hon. and gallant Friend has been instrumental in running one. The trouble is that once you allow this sort of system to grow up you do, in spite of all the safeguards which may be introduced, make an opening for bogus charities. There is plenty of trouble already with bogus charities; we do not want to give one more opening to them. While, of course, any appeal for charities must touch a certain chord in anyone's heart, this is not a Clause which my right hon. Friend can recommend for insertion in the Bill.

12.8 a.m.

Mr. HASLAM: I wish to put one or two considerations in favour of this new Clause before the Committee even at this late hour. It is supported by the hospitals, and for my part I should be satisfied to see it confined to hospitals, provided Christmas draws are allowed for other deserving objects. It is supported by the British Hospitals Association, which comprises 80 per cent. of the beds in hospitals numbering 75,000. It does not include the hospitals in the
London area which are represented by a, different body and I understand that the great London hospitals are not particularly favourable to this scheme of lotteries. But this association representing hospitals in the provinces—some 60,000 or more beds—has informed me that, if the Bill as it stands becomes law, a very considerable number of hospitals throughout the length and breadth of the land will suffer. This Bill and these Amendments have come on rather rapidly and it has not been possible in the, time for the Association to prepare statistics to show how far hospitals generally up and down the country are dependent on lotteries or how for any particular hospital is so dependent But may I give the Committee a local instance because I believe it is to a large extent typical of these hospitals in general. I myself, I may say, have had a medical training and am not unacquainted with hospitals.
There is a cottage hospital in the town in which I live—Skegness. That is a small town and it has hard work in maintaining that hospital. Some years ago a system was instituted of holding an annual lottery for a "Baby Austin" motor car. The car was on exhibition in the town during the summer season when there were visitors about and of course the visitors were pleased to take chances in the lottery. Although that lottery was quite a small affair, I am informed by the secretary that the hospital is going to lose from £500 to £800 a year as a result of its discontinuance. It came to an end in 1932. Of course it had always been, strictly speaking, illegal but no objection had been raised to it previously and the hospital drew a steady income from it. I would like to say, however, that the hospital was by no means dependent entirely upon that lottery because there is a very good list of voluntary subscribers. The management also run a flag day and for this purpose they are given by the town council the best day in the year, namely, the August bank holiday. Then charitable people around Skegness run dances in aid of the hospital's funds and recently a lady resident got up an" American tea," all her friends worked hard to make the function a success, with the result that she raised a sum of which was considered very good indeed. I give these instances to
show how important a source of income these lotteries can be to small country hospitals. I have the assurance of the secretary of this representative association that if no provision is made in the Bill for the continuance of the lotteries many hospitals throughout the land will suffer a serious setback.
I would point out to the Committee that in Part I of the Bill we are legalising betting on a very large scale. In Part II we are taking away from certain persons the opportunity to run lotteries. Who are those persons? In the main they are the hospital committees. Why should large sections of the population be provided with betting facilities on two or three days of the week throughout the year and these hospitals denied the right to hold one small lottery a year in aid of their funds? Is any social reformer going to say that he can point to a man or woman who dates his or her demoralisation from the taking of a half-crown ticket in a seaside raffle of the kind I have described? I beg of the right hon. Gentleman to consider the injury which he is doing to the hospitals. The particular hospital which I have in mind is in need of extension. Skegness is a healthy place, but it is a, growing place and even the healthiest places require hospitals to deal with accident cases and the like. If the hospital committee is unable to make the required extension it means that the hospital is overcrowded and the nursing staff are compelled to work long hours, sometimes remaining on duty until 2 o'clock or 3 o'clock in the morning when they should be finished at 10 o'clock or 11 o'clock. It means that the doctors have to work under unfair conditions and that the patients cannot get proper attention. It means additional suffering. Why then should the hospital committees be deprived of this opportunity which no one has alleged has ever been abused? The ladies and gentlemen who run the lotteries are not doing so for private gain. They have their ordinary occupations and they give their time and generally a good deal of their money to the work of keeping the hospitals going.
If the Bill be passed in its present form, it will strike a blow at hundreds of hospitals all over the country, and therefore I hope that my right hon.
Friend will give consideration to this matter before the Report stage. The Under-Secretary adduced certain arguments as to difficulties which would arise if the new Clause were inserted in the Bill. For my own part I do not think that the hospitals would object to being limited to one raffle per year, and certainly I should not object to the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) that the prize should be limited to £200 in value. The Under-Secretary suggested that these little lotteries might develop into great national affairs. Well, I do not know that a "Baby Austin" reposing on the seashore at Skegness is going to attract national attention and greatness. The hospital authorities, no doubt, would be pleased if it did, but I am afraid that its appeal would always be purely local. Possibly visitors from Leicester or Sheffield or Nottingham might buy tickets, and on their return to those towns might sell the tickets to others. But if my right hon. Friend liked to put on further regulations to deal with that or other points I do not suppose there would be any objection. I certainly should be pleased to have any concession. I think we ought to remember, however, that liberty can not only be legislated out of existence but can be regulated out of existence as well. I suggest in this case that there is a very good example against over-regulating. These lotteries, as I say, have been going on for some time. Of course, they have been illegal, but the blind eye has been turned towards them hitherto. There is a good reminder of the blind eye not far away—I refer to the statue of the famous sailor—and I think the blind eye might very well be turned towards any little irregularities that might arise from summer visitors taking tickets away with them. I should be willing to accept any reasonable Amendments confining these lotteries to local areas, and I feel that it would be impossible for them to develop into anything like national lotteries. I earnestly appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to do one more graceful act to-night by promising to try to devise between now and the Report stage some way of maintaining under the Bill the liberty which in these matters hospital authorities have enjoyed in practice for many years.

Captain HUNTER: I greatly appreciate the interest of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) in the main hospital in the constituency which I represent, but apparently his knowledge of the local conditions was not sufficiently wide to enable him to make the point which I desire to put forward. In the case of that hospital a lottery such as this new Clause would cover is run in this way: a large open-air carnival is organised every year, and the weather is an important consideration, and the only method of insuring against loss in that respect is to sell tickets ahead. That can only be done by providing an inducement to people to buy tickets and the inducement in this case is the offer of a motor car to the holder of the lucky ticket. That proceeding which undoubtedly comes within the scope of a lottery, is absolutely necessary in order to safeguard an important money-making event for an important charity. The event has nothing to do with lotteries, but none the less this draw is the only way of making that effort for the hospital really successful. This is only an instance of similar proceedings in many other places. Unless the Home Secretary will give favourable consideration to something on the lines of this new Clause a great deal of the machinery needed for raising funds for hospitals and other valuable agencies will be destroyed. Late as is the hour I feel that this is a point which ought to be brought to the attention of the Committee.

12.25 a.m.

Mr. HANNON: I should like to join in the very reasonable, carefully considered and modest appeal which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brigg (Captain Hunter) made to the right hon. Gentleman. I have had a close association with hospital administration in one of our great cities, and am proud of that. I know to what a large extent those institutions depend upon old-established and recognised processes of raising money. It would be a very serious departure in the working of our hospitals if they were to be precluded from following them, in order to carry on their work. I have a great respect for the Under-Secretary; I always admired the consistent attitude he took up before he became a Member of the Government,
and how he always said the right thing at the appropriate moment. He has said the wrong thing to-night in replying on behalf of the Government against this Clause. What harm would it do anybody to have a lottery for the sale of an Austin Seven or anything else, in order to raise money for a local hospital? The local people love having something of the kind when the money is for an institution to which they are attached. In the smallest towns there are cottage hospitals, for which local people regard it as a social duty to do everything in their power. Why should there be all this intervention and interference with the rights of the people to raise money for hospitals in the benevolent and kindly way that has been followed for generations? We are over-legislating, and this Bill, not a very popular one as it stands, will be less popular if we prevent hospitals and benevolent institutions from prosecuting, without offence, their usual means of obtaining money.
The Home Secretary will do a service, and he and the Under-Secretary will be carving out a place for themselves, in the esteem of the community, if they allow these institutions to carry on in the old-fashioned English way of providing funds for hospitals. I strongly support the Clause, and I see no earthly reason why we should chop logic or split hairs about it. We want the hospitals of this country to continue on a voluntary basis, and we want every locality to feel that it is maintaining its own hospitals. How can that be done if we pass legislation of this kind? For the credit of the country, the Government and this Committee, I hope that this Clause will be accepted.

12.30 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: I have listened carefully to the arguments put forward from the Government Front Bench. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that we ought not to have allowed the custom which has grown up. Every part of the country has small lotteries to help their hospitals. If you go to agricultural shows in different parts of the country you will find there small cars which have to he drawn for in order to help the hospitals. Many people who go to these shows are very pleased to give small subscriptions to the hospitals by this means. What earthly harm can it
do to anybody in the world to allow people to pay sixpence or a shilling as a subscription to the hospitals, and, in return for it, to have the chance of winning a small car? Why does the Home Secretary want to do this damage to the hospitals Does he realise what he is doing? There seems to be no reason for it except his own prejudice against lotteries of all sorts. He is so obstinate on the matter that he will not listen to any argument put forward in this House.
It is an abuse of the powers of this House that we should be called upon at this time of night to discuss a matter of this sort and that the Home Secretary should definitely refuse to consider before the Report stage what should be done and should say that he cannot do anything to prevent this damage being done to our hospitals. I hope even yet that he will reconsider this matter.

12.32 a.m.

Mr. BAILEY: I regret very much that what is really a very important Clause should fall to be discussed at so late an hour when we would all of us rather be doing something else. In apologising for intervening now I can say—as some of my hon. Friends cannot—that this is my first intervention in the Debate. I regard the Clause as very important indeed, and I think it is a great pity that it should be moved formally and formally dropped as so many Clauses are. I hope the hon. Member who moved it will press it to a division. I listened with the very greatest care to the speech which the Under-Secretary to the Home Office delivered in defence of the Bill. Although I have the greatest admiration for him as an unbending apostle in the cause of purity of all morals, I could not help feeling that his arguments were a little weak and, if I were not one of his admirers, I would say a little forced.
Let us take the arguments which he used. First of all, he said it would be a terrible task for the licensing authorities to decide whether or not to grant an application, and that we should have all sorts of corruption creeping in. I was rather sorry to see he had lost his confidence in the councils in a short forty-eight hours. The other day he was telling
us how fitted those bodies were to decide all these questions. He was telling us that all the pressure of the greyhound authorities could not be brought to bear on them and that the councils would understand all the difficult little details. We must assume that he thought they were men of the highest ability and integrity. When it comes to little applications for hospitals, it suits his case to take an opposite point of view, and he says that he would not trust them in that two-penny-halfpenny matter. As a very great admirer of the Government, I do not think this absence of consistency and this forgetfulness will entirely increase their prestige. Among those of us who admire the Government and among the electors there must be some little bewilderment at this inconsistency.
That was the hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument—that you can trust the councils when the Government want them to do a job of work, but you cannot trust them when anybody else wants them to do a job of work. His second argument was that if we had these hospital sweeps they might become practically a national sweepstake. Why should not they become a national sweep? I should be very glad if the Government took up that position, because the whole country wants something of the kind. Why on earth any National Government should prevent the country getting what it wants, I cannot for the life of me see. I say with the greatest respect that they ought to know better. I do feel that they should realise the awkward position in which they are putting their followers with regard to this matter. I have no interest in these things, in greyhounds and so on, but I do know what the people think. I took the trouble to go into my division and to call from house to house and to inquire what the people thought. Right hon. Gentlemen on the front bench would be surprised to hear what was said about them in connection with this matter. I have no intention to wound hon. Gentlemen, for whom I have the greatest admiration, although I do not sometimes understand their ways. On that point I merely say this. You refuse a national sweep and we cannot discuss that now, but this new Clause gives a half-way house. Surely you should accept what Providence has placed in your hands to deliver you
out of your own folly. Besides, how can you get a national sweep when the prizes cannot exceed £2500?
The third argument which the Under-Secretary used—if I can take it as an argument—was this. He said it would be manifestly unfair that some hospitals should be left out of these sweepstakes. There can only be three applications. Of course, it is manifestly unfair. In the division for instance in which the hon. Member for Bolton (Sir J. Haslam) lives there are only 108,000 people. Manifestly, we in Manchester would require far more lotteries in our division.

Sir J. HASLAM: Bolton Royal Infirmary absolutely refuses to have anything to do with sweepstakes or lotteries.

Mr. BAILEY: I do not want to go into domestic affairs with the hon. Member. In his excellent opinion the people of Bolton will never have anything to do with gambling. I welcome that for it seems to me to be a very effective way of educating the public by an outstanding example of purity of conduct rather than by legislation. But the argument which the Under-Secretary used was this. He said that it was unfair to some places that there should be only three applications allowed whereas others would require far more. He has suggested a solution of his own problem. Why not leave the figure "three" out altogether and let there be as many applications as the people make? After all, if we can trust these local councils in the licensing of greyhound tracks, why cannot we trust to their discretion in this matter? I have never used the word "humbug" to an enemy, and so I do not wish to use it to a friend. What troubles me is that some people will not understand the nature of the conversion of the Under-Secretary on the road to Damascus. These people do not appreciate the extreme purity of his motives. They are so blind that they do not appreciate the compelling force of his logic. All I say is that it might be a good thing if the Government left this matter over at this late hour to continue it at some time later when it may be that they may have a better argument. But that is entirely by the way. We are dealing with a very serious matter about which the public feel deeply. We are doing ourselves damage in the country.
I am talking with serious conviction on this matter. I regret having to vote against the Government on this Clause, and I hope they will not imagine that the only form of strength is not to make concessions. I think that they ought to make a reasonable concession. If the Government do not do so, the Measure will be unworkable and the law will be in greater chaos than it is at present.

12.41 a.m.

Mr. PIKE: I will not keep the Committee more than a few minutes. I would like to direct attention to the alternative to this suggested new Clause. As I understand the ruling of your predecessor, Mr. Chairman, when we were discussing Clause 21, it was that no discussion could take place on that Clause if a discussion was to follow on this new Clause. Those who wanted a discussion on Clause 21 decided to discuss this Clause instead. Clause 21 which is the alternative to this Clause states that:
(c) Tickets or chances in a lottery shall not be sold or issued, nor shall the result of the lottery be declared, except on the premises on which the entertainment takes place and during the progress of the entertainment; and
(d) the facilities afforded for participating in lotteries shall not he the only, or the only substantial, inducement to persons to attend the entertainment.
This new Clause provides a way out of the difficulty created by the wording of Clause 21, especially as it concerns hospitals and such like institutions. I submit that the figure mentioned in the new Clause—£500—far exceeds anything that the hospitals could enjoy by way of sweepstakes organised and promoted under Clause 21. It is evident to anyone that unless one was established in the centre of London, or the centre of the West End of London on a very particular occasion, it would be impossible to collect during the progress of an entertainment any sum comparable to the requirements of the institution or the hospital concerned. In this particular case it is bringing the whole question of charity by way of lotteries to assist hospitals into ridicule. I submit that the arguments used by those taking part in this discussion are unanswerable. We have in Sheffield great difficulties in the matter of deciding whether or not hospitals should enjoy the results of a national sweepstake or national lottery. The question of a
national lottery having been disposed of, we must come down to the question of local lotteries. What is the position? We have a flag day which is not a lottery. We have some form of raising funds to help the hospital. It is a work which must be approved by the local watch committee and unfortunately in many instances the psychology of that committee in respect to that matter is so adverse that it has even refused the hospitals the right to have a flag day or anything comparable to sweepstakes. The attitude which Sheffield takes through its watch committee should be no reason why other parts of the country should suffer when they have been for many years dependent upon this form of charity.
I consider that this new Clause covers with less hampering considerations the real requirements of the country in this respect. It would be difficult for any organisation, no matter how much goodwill was at the back of their movement, to attempt to raise funds under Clause 21. Imagine what the position of the right hon. Gentleman who made a most marvellous appeal in Sheffield only a few weeks ago on behalf of the National Government would have been if the cost of that great meeting had had to be defrayed during the course of the entertainment. The right hon. Gentleman's speech would have been very considerably interrupted. It is folly to ask the hospitals of this country dependent on lotteries to be the subject of conditions in Clause 21. I do not think that it would be fair to ask the Home Secretary to accept this Clause just now, but I support the appeals made to him to reconsider the statement he has already made before the Report Stage.

12.47 a.m.

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: The time has come when this House should realise that hospitals should not be dependent at all on lotteries. It is a standing scandal that speeches should have to be made in this House in support of human institutions such as hospitals. I am inclined to think that people who can afford to make the greatest grants in support of hospitals are people who refuse to do so. In very depressed areas like South Wales where the miners
receive no more than £100 a year in wages they subscribe their threepences and sixpences per week for the hospital. In places which are relatively well-to-do they resort to practices of this kind. It is a standing scandal, and I hope the Home Secretary will stand by his view in this matter.

Mr. HANNON: Are there no lotteries?

Mr. WILLIAMS: So far as the miners are concerned, they make their contributions through the colliery office.

Mr. HANNON: Are we to understand that in regard to the efficient hospitals in Cardiff and Swansea no local lotteries take place?

Mr. WILLIAMS: So far as my knowledge goes, we have none of these lotteries and scandal—at least for the cottage hospitals to which miners go. I do not believe that we have such lotteries either for the big hospitals. I think it is disgraceful that hospitals should be dependent upon that aid. The hospitals of this country should be placed under the Ministry of Health if they are in that plight.

12.49 a.m.

Captain ARCHIBALD RAMSAY: I do not think that I am called upon to apologise to the Committee even at this late hour if I say a few words on this subject. I think that there has been rather ungracious treatment of this Clause. I hope the Home Secretary will say something further this evening in order to ease a situation which I must confess I resent. I wish to associate myself with the speech of the hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Bailey). I do not think that the Under-Secretary gave a single intelligent reason for not accepting the Clause or even offered some hope of re-consideration on Report. He certainly gave us one or two thoroughly unsound reasons in his reply, and I for one, if the Home Secretary or the Under-Secretary cannot add anything to the original statement, will go into the Lobby in support of the Clause.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 45; Noes, 99.

Division No. 389.]
AYES.
[10.13 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Petherick, M.


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Hanley, Dennis A.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Harbord, Arthur
Power, Sir John Cecil


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Ramsay. T. B. W. (Western isles)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Boulton, W. W.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Hornby, Frank
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Horsbrugh, Florence
Rickards, George William


Broadbent, Colonel John
Howard, Torn Forrest
Robinson, John Roland


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Rasbotham, Sir Thomas


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hudson. Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ross Taylor, Waiter (Woodbridge)


Brown,Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Runge, Norah Cecil


Burghley, Lord
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaidy)


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Burnett, John George
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Jamieson, Douglas
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Salt, Edward W.


Carver, Major William H.
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Castlereagh, Viscount
Ker, J. Campbell
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Savery, Samuel Servington


Christie, James Archibaid
Law, Sir Alfred
Scone, Lord


Clarry, Reginald George
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Colman, N. C. D.
Liddell, Walter S.
Slater, John


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Conant, R. J. E.
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cuntliffe-
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Cook, Thomas A.
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine,C.)


Cooke, Douglas
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Soper, Richard


Copeland, Ida
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Spens, William Patrick


Courtauid, Major John Sewell
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Stevenson, James


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
McCorquodale, M. S.
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
McKie, John Hamilton
Sutcliffe, Harold


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Templeton, William P.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Thompson, Sir Luke


Dickie, John P.
Maitland, Adam
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert
Manningham-Butter, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Train, John


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Martin, Thomas B.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Dunglass, Lord
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Elmley, Viscount
Meller, Sir Richard James
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Eseenhigh. Reginald Clare
Milne, Charles
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Mansell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Ganzonl, Sir John
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Gilmour. Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Glossop, C. W. H.
Moss, Captain H. J.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Gluckstein, Louis Halls
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Writs, Wilfrid D.


Goff, Sir Park
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Young. Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)


Graham. Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
O'Connor, Terence James



Grigg, Sir Edward
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grimston, R. V.
Ormiston, Thomas
Major George Davies and Commander Southby.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Orr Ewing, I. L.



Guy, J. C. Morrison
Percy, Lord Eustace



NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Milner, Major James


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'tles)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'.W.)
Owen, Major Goronwy


Banfieid, John William
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Parkinson, John Allen


Batey, Joseph
Groves, Thomas E.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Rea, Walter Russell


Cape, Thomas
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Roberts. Aled (Wrexham)


Curry, A. C.
Holdsworth, Herbert
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Dagger, George
Jenkins, Sir William
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merloneth)
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thnesa)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Davies, Stephen Owen
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Taylor,Vice-Admiral E.A. (P'dd'gt'n,S.)


Debbie, William
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Tinker, John Joseph


Edwards, Charles
Lawson, John James
Wayland, Sir William A.


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Leonard, William
West, F. R.


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Lunn, William
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mender, Geoffrey le M.



Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh. E.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. T. Williams and Mr. Paling.


Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Division No. 390.]
AYES.
[12.51 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Rickards, George William


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Carver, Major William H.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer 
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Clarry, Reginald George
Law. Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Daggar, George
Liddall, Walter S.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Llewellin, Major John J.
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Fox, Sir Gifford
Loftus, Pierce C.
Taylor,Vice-Admiral E.A.(p'dd'gt'n,S.)


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Logan, David Gilbert
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Glossop, C. W. H.
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Moss, Captain H. J.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Hanley, Dennis A.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pike, Cecil F.



Harbord, Arthur
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Mr. Haslam and Mr. Gurney Braithwaite.




NOES.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Paling, Wilfred


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Patrick, Colin M.


Blindell, James
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Petherick, M.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Holdsworth, Herbert
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Horobin, Ian M.
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Butt. Sir Alfred
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Conant, R. J. E.
Jenkins, Sir William
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Ker, J. Campbell
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Critchley, Brig.-General A. C.
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Scone, Lord


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Soper, Richard


Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Mabane, William
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Macdonald. Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Stones, James


Edwards, Charles
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Storey, Samuel


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
McKie, John Hamilton
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Magnay, Thomas
Sutcliffe, Harold


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Templeton, William P.


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Martin, Thomas B.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (wallsend)


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
White, Henry Graham


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Graves, Marjorie
Morrison, William Shepherd
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Greene, William P. C.
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Wragg, Herbert


Grimston, R. V.
O'Donovan, Dr. William James



Gunston, Captain D. W.
Ormiston, Thomas
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Orr Ewing, I. L.
Sir George Pennyeand Sir Victor Warrender.

CLAUSE 25.—(Power to issue search warrant.)

10.20 p.m.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I beg to move, in page 22, line 17, after the second "the," to insert "said."
There is another Amendment conveniently following this one—In line 18, leave out "named in the warrant"—and the few remarks I have to make will be directed to both. As the Clause stands there is no essential connection between the premises mentioned in an information and the premises named in a warrant. For instance, the information might be sworn in respect of 10, Downing Street, and the search warrant might authorise a search of 11, Downing Street. We suggest that the premises named in the warrant should be the same as in the information. This Amendment follows upon the lines of one moved in Committee on the Incitement to Disaffection Bill, which was then accepted by the Attorney-General, and on that precedent I submit this Amendment for his consideration.

10.22 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am quite prepared to accept this Amendment, just as I accepted the Amendment on the other Bill. Indeed, I am not at all sure that it was not the intention of the Clause that the premises should be the same in both cases. I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for moving this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 22, line 18, leave out "named in the warrant."—[Mr. Isaac Foot.]

In line 20, leave out "or money," and insert "money or valuable thing."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

CLAUSE 26.—(Interpretation of Part II.)

Amendments made: In page 23, line 2, leave out "or sent."

In line 3, leave out "or sent, whether by post or otherwise."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

10.25 p.m.

Mr. GLOSSOP: This Clause deals with the interpretation of the various expressions in Part II of the Bill. We are told that money includes a cheque, bank note, postal order or money order. Previously, in Clause 20 (1, e) we have decided that it is illegal in connection with lotteries to transfer money overseas in the form of cheque, bank note, postal order or money order. May I ask the Home Secretary whether stamps are included in the definition of money? We have been warned of the necessity of guarding against the unscrupulous person, but as a layman I think that here is a loophole by which such persons can evade the Bill by transmitting money in the form of postage stamps.

Captain CROOKSHANK: The answer to the hon. Gentleman is to be found in the various Government Amendments which have been moved from time to time to add after the word "money" in the different Clauses, the words "or valuable thing."

CLAUSE 27.—(Offences by bodies corporate.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part, of the Bill."

10.27 p.m.

Major COLFOX: May I call attention to the drafting of this Clause which seems rather peculiar. It says:
Where a person convicted of an offence … is a body corporate.
Are there any possible circumstances in which a person can be a body corporate? It seems that this must either be "a person" or "a body corporate."

10.28 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I am not quite sure at whom the Clause is aimed. What would be the position, for instance, in regard to co-operative societies? They are, of course, highly speculative bodies, and we ought to know if they are included.

10.29 p.m.

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Normand): A legal personality may be a person—an individual—or a body corporate, and may be convicted of a statutory offence.

CLAUSE 28.—(Penalties for offences under this Act and forfeitures).

Amendments made:

In page 23, line 16, leave out "under."

In page 24, line 13, leave out "in the hands of the police," and insert instead thereof "produced to the court."

In line 17, leave out "in the hands of the police," and insert instead thereof "produced to the court."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

10.30 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: This is a serious position for the House of Commons to take up. No doubt it has bound itself to take this position by all that has gone before. We are, as we have been told throughout the day, creating new offences, making new criminals, furnishing new candidates for our penal establishments. We have passed with a gesture another Clause which must be read in connection with
this one, giving the right of intrusion into the dwelling-house on a new set pretexts. All these steps are being taken one after another; the House of Commons would not dream in its collective capacity of offering any resistance to the will of the Government. Now we have to pass Clause 28, which contains very heavy penalties. For a first offence there is a severe fine and imprisonment—the prison taint is to be inflicted for a first offence on summary conviction, and there. is to be a fine not exceeding £100. In the case of a second or any subsequent conviction the imprisonment may be for a term not exceeding three months and under Sub-section (2) the fine rises to £500 and the imprisonment goes up to one year—one year's imprisonment for those guilty people who break this law by participating in a national Derby sweepstake, who mingle with such a wicked affair.
It is quite all right in the case of football; it is quite safe in the case of the little lotteries and so forth. That is perfectly all right. There is not the slightest moral foundation for these invasions that are being made on liberty—I do not mean the liberty to gamble, but the liberty to live, to walk freely in the street, the liberty of your fellow-man. It is nothing but a deal. On these grounds I think the House ought to consider, with very much more gravity than it has, a Clause like this. One of the greatest difficulties which they have to face in the United States is the enormous volume of legislation, which is poured out like a mill by all the legislatures every year. We are getting into the same sort of mood here. The Government have only to put up a Bill, get it on to the lines of the House, turn their machinery on it, and it goes through. I believe that the penalties which are inflicted in this Clause set the stamp upon the Bill; they show the gravity, the bite that there is in it; and when we take the whole situation as presented to us to-day—the first time that this part of the Bill has really been brought under the dissection of the House of Commons—we cannot but feel that an injury is being done to our national life without the slightest warrant of moral justification.

10.34 p.m.

Sir W. DAVISON: I desire to associate myself with what has been said by the
right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). These are what have been described as savage penalties. The Government are introducing this Bill, as we are told, to stop betting and gambling, but, as I said in my speech last night, they swallow the camel of football pools and street betting, which the Royal Commission said were the main causes of the demoralisation of the people and the ruination of homes; and the Royal Commission, although not recommending it, put in a special rider to say that the least objectionable form of betting and gambling was a lottery under State protection. The Government pass over the question of street betting and football pools; they do not even refer to it in the Bill. There was a Clause in the Bill, but in another place, when the Bill was introduced, the Noble Lord who introduced it never mentioned the matter at all, and indicated that the Government did not propose to include it in the Bill.
The Royal Commission said there were fewer objections to a national sweepstake than to any other form of betting and gambling because there were no private interests to be conciliated and, if they found it was not desirable, they could discontinue it at once. We have these savage penalties. Again and again we see in the Press cases of the most brutal cruelty to animals and human beings punished by a sentence of one or two months in prison or a paltry fine, but a person who takes a ticket in a lottery twice may be fined £750 and imprisoned for a year. It is bringing the criminal law into disrepute. Some people deprecate this new offence but at the most, if you met at dinner a person who had been guilty of it, you would say, "You naughty boy," and that would be the extent of the condemnation that would be visited upon him. It is only a sample of the wrong-headedness of the Government. It will cost them their life, because people will not put up with such a prostitution of justice. It is a very remarkable thing that the Socialists and the Samuelite Liberals are supporting the Government. [Interruption.] I am glad there are some who are not. Both in the Committee and here the Opposition have supported the Government because they know they are supporting them on the downward track that leads to their dissolution and death.
The Government have flouted the opinion of their own supporters in imposing these penalties for a thing which the main body supporting the Government say is a proper thing to be done. It is making popular government a farce and the criminal law an absurdity and, if the House passes this Clause, God help the country!

10.40 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: For once in the 13 years that I have been in the House I am inclined to agree with the hon. Member and with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). When the hon. Member who spoke last taunts us with not criticising the Government sufficiently, I would remind him that a stranger thing has happened in these Debates. When we have agreed with him on one or two occasions and forced a Division, he has spoken very eloquently against the Government but has failed to accompany us into the Lobby. The same thing is true of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to be more persistent. If he really feels as strongly as he has indicated in his speech, he ought to take the matter to a Division and see how much support he can get.
There are some of us on this side of the Committee who want to appeal to the Home Secretary to see whether he cannot modify some of these very drastic penalties. I have no hesitation in believing that there will probably be very serious breaches of the law in connection with dog racing and betting and all the rest of it. I am one who believes that too drastic, severe and savage penalties do not give the law the respect to which it is entitled. There seems to be no chance of putting a first offender on probation. The hon. Gentleman opposite is apparently inclined to think that there is room for probation under this Clause, but there is nothing stated here to that effect. What rather offends my feelings about the Clause is that, first of all, there is a fine, and then there is a fine and imprisonment, or a fine or imprisonment on summary conviction. We find later on in the Clause that a person can be sent to prison without the option of a fine. We have pleaded on more than one occasion that in Bills of this kind the Government should not inflict these very heavy penal-
ties, and I should be happy indeed to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he is prepared to reconsider some of the provisions in the Clause now under discussion.

10.43 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: The Clause deals, in the first place, let me emphasise, with maximum figures. The courts must decide as to the gravity of the offence, but we have felt it right to make it clear to the country that the offences committed under the Bill will be offences of considerable gravity. But it is perfectly clear that these are maximum penalties, and that in most of the cases they will not in fact be imposed. At any rate, it will be for the courts to decide. With regard to the question of probation about which I was asked, I will say, "Yes, it is possible for probation to be exercised." We are dealing with a problem in which very large figures will be concerned in some of these cases.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Large figures of money?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, large figures of money, and it is right that the House should make no mistake in putting the maximum at a high figure in order that this kind of case can, if the court wishes, on the evidence before it, be dealt with adequately. On the contrary, we all know that where the courts have the right of exercising their jurisdiction, they do not in the majority of cases, and certainly in the earlier cases, impose the maximum penalties, and, as I have said, they can also give probation.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. GROVES: I should not like it to be thought that because of our attitude towards this Clause we wish it to be left so that there are no penalties for wrongdoers. The Committee for a considerable time has been discussing lotteries in the sense of a huge public lottery, which would be a novel thing for this country. I should like to impress upon the Home Secretary, seeing that some of the new Clauses that we have suggested will not be within the scope of the Bill, and therefore not in order, that he should consider that the penalties proposed in this Clause will apply to all people who are operating what are legally called "lotteries." Once this Bill becomes law it will mean that any one of us who has
been engaged directly in a fun fair, as many hon. Members opposite must have been engaged from time to time, will have been engaged in practices which will be a contravention of the law if this Bill passes. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I will give cases. Are hon. Members aware that under the Act of 1853, which the Home Secretary does not propose to repeal, they are liable if they engage in the simple pursuit of cocoanut shies, and that many men who are occupied in these simple pursuits in this industry find themselves within the purview of the police, and have been taken before the magistrates and fined sums exceeding £50 and up to £100? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I can give instances.

Sir J. PYBUS: Can the hon. Member produce one instance of people who have been fined £50 for running a coconut shy?

Mr. GROVES: I did not say that I had the information with me at the moment, but I do know that I have been calling attention to it for some years, and that people connected with such an innocent amusement have been taken before the local magistrate and fined for contravening the Act of Parliament. Further, it is true to say that these ordinary men and women in the amusements at fairs are within the law of the land. The Home Secretary is proposing to increase the fines on men and women engaged in this industry and increase the hardships of these people. It is all very well for my hon. Friend to treat it lightly.

Sir J. PYBUS: I do not treat lightly the assertion that a person has been fined £50 for running a coconut shy. I have asked for an instance, but he does not give it.

The CHAIRMAN: I have been trying to follow the hon. Member to see whether he is out of order. I cannot see how the penalties under the Act of 1853 come under this Clause.

Mr. GROVES: The Clause says:
A person guilty of an offence under section one, section two, section three, or under section ten, or under any section contained in Part II

The CHAIRMAN: "Of this Act."

Mr. GROVES: Surely Clause 24 has something to do with it.

The CHAIRMAN: It is nothing to do with the Act of 1853.

Mr. GROVES: Clause 24 (I, b) states:
any other competition success in which does not depend to a substantial degree upon the exercise of skill.
As the Home Secretary knows, for years now he has had applications from this industry for some help in a definition on this point. Chief constables have written to the Home Office asking for guidance on the application of the present law. I am certain that the Chief Constable of Southport has written for guidance in the application of the present law.

The CHAIRMAN: It is quite obvious, as the hon. Member knows, that people asking for guidance on the present law can have nothing to do with that which we are discussing which is not yet the law.

Mr. GROVES: Are we not trying to prevent it from becoming law?

The CHAIRMAN: If further remarks are addressed to the question whether this should become law, then I think the hon. Member will be in Order.

Sir J. GILMOUR: This has nothing to do with showmen tourers. It does not affect them adversely or operate in their favour.

Mr. GROVES: The burden of my speech is that for years—and this is not irrelevant—we, who have been entertained in our thousands, and the hundreds engaged in running these shows, have never been able to determine what is the element of skill in running a fair. I am trying to urge on the Home Office that they have no right to increase penalties in this connection in this Bill. I do not think they desire to do so. If it is not the intention of the Home Secretary to impose additional hardships on the people I have indicated, I am perfectly satisfied. If it is an addition to the hardship of showmen in this country, then I must oppose the Clause as unjust and unwarranted. If the showmen will continue to operate as before and not be harshly treated, while the degree of vigilance is not undue, I shall be perfectly satisfied to withdraw my opposition.

Sir J. GILMOUR: All I can say is that the Clause does not affect the interests which the hon. Member has mentioned in any way at all.

10.56 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The more I see of this Bill the more I feel that I ought to oppose it. In regard to this Clause the Home Secretary has said that they are maximum penalties. There is another angle from which I want to approach the Clause. What happens now; what happens in Scotland? You go to one court which does not think that betting is a bad offence and a fine of £2 is imposed, but within a few miles you may go to another court and be fined £20 for exactly the same offence. The maximum is £100 and inside that the fine may be anything from £1 to £100. In some parts of the country magistrates are not going to take the same view of an offence as other magistrates may take, and what will occur is that certain benches will do As they are now doing, will impose comparatively small fines while other courts will impose either the maximum or something approaching the maximum. I do not think, when we are dealing with a voluntary bench of magistrates who are not trained lawyers, that we should allow them full play between £1 and £100. At a place like Epsom you would never dream of a magistrates taking the same view of a betting offence as say the magistrates in the Pollock Division of Glasgow. The maximum penalty is far too high.
The other point is this. In betting, as in life, what happens is that the rich who have facilities can generally get round the law, but in the case of the poor it is not so much a fine as imprisonment, and to allow a poor person to go to prison for two months for having done something in connection with a lottery or greyhound racing is a disgrace. Take motoring offences. If a man wants to kill his wife he need not give her poison. He has only to buy a motor car and kill her in that way, and all he will get at the most is a comparatively short sentence. No one will think him a criminal. Everyone will think it was an accident.
Let us be frank about betting. Nearly everyone in some form or other touches it, and people do not look upon it as a crime. As a matter of fact, what is going to happen here is what happened in regard to Sunday closing. It is going to make crime popular. The punishment for offences is far too heavy. In mines legislation people can break the law and nothing like this is done to them.
The whole approach here is wrong. The penalties are shocking. When we try to stop a man from committing one wrong he sets about inventing another. We must take care that in our punishment of men, in forcing them into prison, we are not making them a great deal worse than they are. I have never known a prison to make a man better. Prison makes a good man bad and a bad man worse. I view with a great deal of alarm these penalty proposals.

11.2 p.m.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I think most of the Committee would deplore anything like a heavy penalty upon an individual citizen who has taken a lottery ticket. I should be strongly opposed to such a penalty. There may be cases where someone is out for gain, acting with continued contumacy and anxious to flout the law for financial benefit, and in such cases it should be made known that it is not worth while to commit the offence. There is all the difference between such a man and the individual to whom the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) referred, who would probably be dealt with very leniently under the Probation of Offenders Act. There is all the difference between that individual and someone organising or conspiring to set aside what is the decision of Parliament, and doing it for financial advantage. It is important that in some cases the penalties should be large enough to convince such men that to commit the offence is not worth their while.
Having said that, I hope that the Home Secretary between now and the Report stage will look at the Amendments. It seems to me that the penalties are so hard that they will tend to bring the Measure into disrepute. If a risk is to be run I would rather the risk was run with a lower penalty than with a higher one. If these penalties are retained, those who are out to discredit the Bill will fasten upon this Clause and direct their criticism towards it. When a big social experiment is being made, mainly on the recommendations of a Royal Commission, I do not think it is the mind of the country to impose heavy penalties upon any individual citizen. While retaining a substantial penalty, particularly for the second offence and for those who are animated by the temptation to exploit their fellow-citizens for financial
gain, I hope the Government will before the Report stage consider what is I think the mind of most Members of the Committee, namely, that the penalties should be reduced in all these other cases so that the Measure may receive general approval throughout the country and may not be criticised upon what is after all a secondary ground.

11.7 p.m.

Major MILNER: I wish to try to clear up what appears to be a misconception. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford (Mr. Groves) that Clause 28 had no relation to competitions on small fair grounds and things of that sort. Clause 28 sets out certain very serious punishments for offences under various Clauses and in particular those contained in Part II. Now Clauses 21 and 24, both of which in my submission deal with these small fair ground competitions are included in Part II, and Clause 28 inflicts these very serious punishments on persons guilty of offences under those Clauses. I submit to the Committee that these punishments are too severe. Years ago I used to defend members of the Showmen's Guild—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member that those offences are connected with gaming, which is not touched by this Bill one way or the other and is outside the scope of the Bill.

Major MILNER: With respect may I say that many of those offences have been held by the courts to be lotteries and I understand that the Bill does deal with lotteries. I submit that Clause 28 has relation to those offences. In that case these punishments are too high and I respectfully urge the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the matter with a view to bringing them more into conformity with the very trivial nature of the offences in question. I would remind him that these offences often arise in connection with the traditional games carried on at these small fair grounds throughout the country.

11.9 p.m.

Sir BASIL PETO: I wish to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) and the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) to the fact that the
very first words of this Clause show that it applies to offences under Clauses 1, 2, 3 and 10 as well as Part II. Therefore, the penalties as maximum penalties must be of such a nature as will be in proportion to the enormously lucrative results of a flouting of the law on the part of the proprietors of greyhound racing tracks who will make enormous sums of money by exercising the rights conferred upon them by this Bill.

Sir W. DAVISON: It ought to be divided.

Sir B. PETO: Possibly, but I am bound to point out to the hon. Member and also to the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and others who have spoken that they were all dealing with trivial offences committed by individuals under Part II. I cannot go as far as the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot), because he made an appeal to the Home Secretary to reconsider these penalties. The only appeal that I would make to my right hon. Friend would be to consider whether it is possible to put into one Clause, without an Division at all, penalties that would possibly be appropriate to the trivial offences with which most of the speakers in this Debate have been concerned, and the very grave offences for which these penalties are certainly appropriate.

11.11 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Much as I want to see gambling of a certain kind dealt with, I think the small man must be borne in mind when penalties are being fixed. One can conceive of the right hon. Gentleman dealing very severely with the promoter of a national lottery or an area lottery in direct contravention, not only of the desire of the right hon. Gentleman, but of the expressed will of this House of Commons. But then, let hon. Members think of the individual at a fair who sells tickets for an aeroplane race, in which small aeroplanes move round, and the lucky person secures a prize worth 2s., it may be, and that will be interpreted as a form of lottery. This Bill repeals no fewer than 10 Lottery Acts and a part of the Gaming Act, and therefore it will be the prime piece of machinery which will not only determine the fines for lotteries, large and small, but the penalties embodied in this Bill
will also be the determining factors in many of the courts of this country. I need hardly tell the Home Secretary or the Attorney-General that with our area magistrates we have some extraordinary decisions. Recently, in my own division, the police entered a club and confiscated some machines, and a very heavy fine was inflicted on the committee of the club for having the machines there. In another area that I know very well the machines were just left there. There was also a case recently, a fair ground case, where they had what is called a "Wheel them in" game, to catch pennies from young persons and others. One rolls a penny round a piece of wood, and if it falls into a square, he may get 2d., or 4d., or 1s., if he is lucky. In one police court the magistrate declared that there was such an element of skill in the game that an offence had not been committed, but close by, in another area, it was decided that it was purely a game of chance, and a fine was inflicted.
I am not concerned with the merits or the demerits of the entertainment provided. I am suggesting that if these maximum fines are in the Bill they may be inflicted on comparatively small people for very small offences. I agree with the hon. Baronet that the penalties for any offence under Clauses 1, 2 and 3 may be very heavy. There we have limited liability companies dealing with these things on a large scale. An infringement of the Bill by a big lottery ought to be dealt with according to the circumstances, but for the small offence which may be committed, particularly in the initial stages of the Bill until the law becomes generally understood, there ought to be such penalties as would not disturb even the conscience of the right hon. Gentleman or of the Attorney-General. I wish that between now and the Report stage the right hon. Gentleman, without making any definite promises, will undertake to review the penalties. If he will do that and try to discriminate between the offence of the big culprit and the potential small misdemeanour, he will meet the wishes of the Committee. If human ingenuity can devise a fine or punishment consistent with the crime—for once it is generally known what is a crime, it will cease—the right hon. Gentleman will meet the needs of every part of the Committee.

11.17 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I confess I am in a difficulty to know how it is possible to meet the kind of point which some hon. Members have put. Not being a lawyer, I can understand the feeling that there should be a differentiation between one kind of offence and another; but it has always been, as I understand it, within the jurisdiction of the courts to judge of that from the circumstances, and it has always been the set custom for Parliament in every Act of Parliament to say, "There are certain classes of offence; some of these offences may be very large and costly, and there may be a great deal of money and roguery in them. Therefore, we must of necessity have a penalty which will have some influence upon that kind of action." That is essential. Equally, it has been the custom, as I understand, to put in the maximum penalty and to leave to the courts, on the evidence which is put before them, how the cases should be dealt with. The courts might not convict for a first offence in a, minor case. They might not even convict on a second offence; and there is power for probation and also power to give a sentence of a very minor character. I understand that if it, were apparent that the courts were giving decisions which were out of conformity with justice, there are different kinds of machinery for appeals by which the decisions can be reviewed.
I am in agreement with the sentiment which has been expressed, but when it comes down to methods of giving practical effect to the feeling other than those we have suggested I know of nothing else that can be proposed. However I am perfectly prepared to consider the question. A number of problems have been put to me, and—I have been quite frank with the Committee—no doubt there are problems which I cannot answer on the spur of the moment. But I have listened to the Debate and I will take the question into consideration with those who are capable of advising me in order to see whether anything can be done; but I repeat that the Committee must understand that there are some practices which really must be checked.

11.22 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think there is very much difference between the Committee and the Home Secretary. We
have had a discussion which was rather stormy at times, and there have been passages and interchanges, but it seems that towards the close we have got to a close measure of agreement on this point, and I was delighted to hear my right hon. Friend say that he shared the sentiment which had been so generally expressed in the Committee that although in the case of the promoters of illegal action there should be a financial penalty—and not only a financial penalty—sufficient to prove an effective deterrent, that nevertheless we should not bring scores of thousands of humble people, our fellow countrymen, into a position where we say to them: "Ah, you have done something which lays you open to a penalty of six months imprisonment"—or something of that sort. I thought the proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto), which was taken up so handily, if I may say so, by the hon. Member speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, and put forward in a very soothing fashion, had brought us to a point where some definite step forward might be taken. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend will not shrink from the labour involved between now and the Report stage in dividing the penalties into two categories. It is not a difficult thing to do, with the staff and plant of a Government Department at his disposal, and with the aid, readily forthcoming, of the most accomplished Law Officers. There could be no difficulty in assigning the severe penalties to certain Clauses of the Bill and to have inserted elsewhere penalties for the smaller offenders. I take it from what; the right hon. Gentleman has said that he is contemplating some such procedure. The Noble Lady need not look at me in that manner.

Viscountess ASTOR: We are all agreed. We can go home.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Noble Lady has all day long been engaged in pious works, and she ought not to weary in well doing.

Viscountess ASTOR: There is a disadvantage in being a, teetotaller.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I hope the Noble Lady is not going to delay the proceedings. It would be a great pity if, at the moment when we are in a more genial
atmosphere, she should be the one to strike a jarring note. I hope the Home Secretary will seriously take into consideration the suggestion that the severe penalties should be reserved for those who commit large scale offences.

11.25 p.m.

Mr. GROVES: In his reply, the Home Secretary failed to touch upon the point I made, as to the smaller fry. If he will meet one or two Members of the House who will put the point of view which I have endeavoured to put, that will satisfy me. If the Bill is passed in its present form, the smaller fairgrounds are dead. I feel that the Home Secretary and his advisers do not intend that, and I hope that he will reconsider the point before the Report stage.

11.26 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I would like to ask the Home Secretary a question on the part with which we have not yet dealt, Sub-section (3). In the interests of purity, it is essential that we should know what happens to the tainted money which is taken away either in the form of a prize or by sale of tickets. Obviously the Government cannot take it. They are not allowed to touch tainted money in any circumstances. Quite as obviously the police cannot take it; they cannot be corrupted. It is equally essential that we should protect the local authorities from taking it. There only remain the charitable organisations and the churches, or something of that sort, to take it. Who is going to have this tainted money? Perhaps the Government have not thought of this point. It would be very wrong if the Committee were to allow this tainted money, as we are always told it is, to flow into the national exchequer. I hope the Government will tell us exactly where the money is going to.

11.28 p.m.

Sir W. DAVISON: The Committee have the greatest cause to complain of the carelessness with which the Bill has been drafted in Clause after Clause. The Home Secretary has been two years at the Home Office yet he tells us that from his experience there he thought it was a customary part of the criminal law to lump all sorts of crimes together and put the highest penalty that would apply to all of them. That is just as if a Bill was
passed to impose an enormous penalty on, say, manslaughter, stealing chickens and shove-penny, that penalty being £1,000. It is playing fast and loose to propose a penalty of £750, which might be suitable for a person who runs a syndicate or a dog track contrary to Act of Parliament, for a person who, on two occasions sells a lottery ticket is monstrous. If the Law Officers of the Crown cannot provide proper phraseology, the sooner we get new Law Officers the better. The Home Secretary has said that he will look into this before the Report stage; I suggest the Clause ought never to have been presented to the Committee.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: May I have an answer to my question

Sir J. GILMOUR: So far as I understand it, all forfeitures go to the Crown.

CLAUSE 29.—(Application to Scotland.)

Amendments made In page 24, line 21, leave out "apply to Scotland," and insert "in its application to Scotland have effect."

In line 23, after "reference," insert "in section four of this Act."

In line 33, leave out "this Act," and insert "the said section four."

In page 25, line 2, at the end, insert:
(3) Sub-section (2) of section five shall have effect as if for the councils and authorities (other than the licensing authority) therein mentioned the following councils and authorities were substituted, that is to say:—

(a) the council of the county or burgh within which the track or any part thereof is situate; and
(b) the responsible authority under a planning scheme in force in any area which includes the track or any part thereof;

where such council or responsible authority is not the licensing authority.

In line 25, after "any," insert "school or."—[The Lord Advocate.]

11.30 p.m.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 26, line 9, to leave out Subsection (8).
This Amendment is preliminary to an Amendment which my right hon. Friend
has put down to the First Schedule, setting forth the names of the bodies whose members will be qualified to act as accountants under this Part of the Bill. As the names will then be included in the Schedule, it will not be necessary to include them in the Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

11.32 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Before this Clause is passed, I want to ask the Lord Advocate if his mind is definitely made up on the question of the sheriff exercising the power conferred by Clause 25 on a justice of the peace. In Scotland, where a search warrant is procured, it is generally a sheriff's warrant, and never that of a justice of the peace. I want to ask the Lord Advocate if it has been decided that the law shall be continued as it was before, so that nobody but a sheriff shall be able to grant a search warrant. Further, do I understand from the Clause that all offences under the previous Clause will be triable by the sheriff, and that none of them will be triable by what is called in Scotland a local magistrate? If that be the case, in view of the probable increase in the number of offences to be tried, I want to ask the Lord Advocate if he has given any consideration to the question of the number of sheriffdoms in Scotland?

11.34 p.m.

The LORD ADVOCATE: With regard to the first point, the law is that all these prosecutions will take place before the Sheriff, and none before a local magistrate. That is the result of a series of decisions which put it beyond all doubt that, since there is no jurisdiction conferred upon the burgh magistrates, the only court in which such cases can be tried will be the sheriff's court. As regards the grant of search warrants, I think that under existing legislation a search warrant may be granted either by a magistrate or by the sheriff, but I will look into the matter before the Report stage.

Clause 30 (Repeal) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 31.—(Short Title, commencement and extent.)

11.35 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 26, line 31, to leave out from "nine," to "but," in line 34, and to insert:
sections seventeen and eighteen and sections twenty-seven to twenty-nine of this Act shall come into operation forthwith, and Part II of this Act and (except in so far as it effects the repeal of any provision of the Racecourse Betting Act, 1928), section thirty of this Act shall come into operation on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-five.
This is to meet the difficulty that the Bill is coming into operation in July instead of January. The machinery will be brought into operation forthwith and the local authorities will be able to make the necessary preliminary arrangements, but the actual scheme of licensing tracks will not come into force until 1st July.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made:

In page 26, line 35, leave out "January" and insert "July."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

Mr. MAGNAY: There is an Amendment to Clause 29—in page 26, line 36, to leave out "thirty-five," and to insert "thirty-six"—in the name of myself and others which I understood was to be called.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must have forgotten that, owing to an Amendment by the Lord Advocate which the Committee accepted, the place where his Amendment should have been moved no longer existed.

Mr. LOGAN: I wished to speak on Clause 31.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Committee has agreed that the Clause stand part and no further question now arises.

Mr. LOGAN: I was on my feet.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I did not see the hon. Member. I am sorry.

11.38 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I do so in order to find out how long it is proposed to sit.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I hope the Committee will agree to finish the Bill tonight. It is essential that we should do so in order to give time for the Report stage. I have undertaken in a great many cases to review problems which hon. Members have raised and in fairness to myself and my staff I hope the Committee will realise that delay will make that consideration almost impossible.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I assume that the Report stage will be taken early next week.

Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and negatived.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Powers of entry on tracks.)

Any person authorised in writing in that behalf by the licensing authority, on producing his authority on demand, and any constable, may at all reasonable times enter upon any track for the purpose of ascertaining whether the provisions of this Part of this Act are being complied with, and every person who obstructs any constable or other person in the exercise of his powers under this section shall be guilty of an offence.—[Captain Crookshank.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

11.39 p.m.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The general intention is that licensing authorities should exercise some kind of general supervision over the tracks. Unfortunately no provision was made in the Bill as drafted for that to be done, therefore this new Clause is introduced which would enable the police or duly authorised representatives of the licensing authority to inspect the tracks and see that everything is being carried on as it should be, and to make it an offence for any person to obstruct them. It is a necessary corollary to the licensing authority carrying out this function.

11.40 p.m.

Mr. PIKE: May I ask the Under. Secretary of State whether it is the intention that any police constable visiting a track must be in uniform? As the Clause reads,
Any person authorised in writing in that behalf by the licensing authority, on producing his authority on demand, and any constable,
if the constable is not in uniform, it appears to me that there is a possibility that he may be refused admission to the track merely on the statement that he is a constable. May we have the assurance that he will be in uniform?

Captain CROOKSHANK: Of course, he will either be in uniform or have his authority.

Mr. PIKE: It does not say so here.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Well, it is obvious.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: If a constable is off duty and thinks he would like a free visit to the dogs, is he entitled to go?

Clause added to the Bill.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The next new Clause, which is in order, is the one standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Wellingborough (Wing-Commander James.)

NEW CLAUSE.—(Prohibition of bookmaking on racecources and tracks except by registered bookmakers.)

(1) Every person carrying on business as a bookmaker on any track or racecourse shall annually apply for his name to be entered in a register kept for such purpose by the chief officer of police for the district in which he normally resides, and a fee not exceeding ten shillings shall be chargeable for such entry.

(2) The chief officer of police shall not permit the name of any bookmaker to be entered in the register unless such person hold a certificate of eligibility granted in accordance with the provisions of this section and authorising the registration of such person as a bookmaker, and any registration permitted in contravention of this Sub-section shall be void.

(3) Certificates of eligibility under this section shall be granted by the petty sessional court having jurisdiction in the petty sessional division in which the bookmaker normally resides, so however that within any part of the Metropolitan police district for which a police court is established a certificate shall not be granted except by a police magistrate.

(4) A certificate of eligibility under this section shall come into force on the date specified therein, and shall expire on the next following thirty-first day of July.

(5) A Secretary of State shall make rules with respect to the procedure to be followed in making applications for certificates, and certificates shall be in such a form as may be prescribed by rules so made.

(6) A certificate of eligibility shall not be refused except on some one or more of the following grounds—

(a) that satisfactory evidence has not been produced of the good character of the applicant;
(b) that satisfactory evidence has been produced by the secretary of the Jockey Club or the secretary of the National Hunt Committee that the applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold a certificate;
(c) that the applicant is by order of a court disqualified for holding a certificate;
(d) that the applicant has not complied with the provisions of any rules made under this section with respect to applications for certificates.

(7) Any person aggrieved by the refusal of a petty sessional court to grant a certificate may appeal to a court of quarter sessions in the manner provided by the Summary Jurisdiction Act as if the refusal were an order of a court of summary jurisdiction.

(8) Any person carrying on business as a bookmaker on any track or racecourse who accepts or negotiates or who assists in the acceptance or negotiations of a bet without being at the time duly registered in accordance with the terms of this section, or who issues any betting ticket not clearly marked with his number in the register of bookmakers, shall be liable in respect of each offence to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, and in the case of a second or subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two months or to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to both such imprisonment or such fine, and in addition to any penalty the court may in its discretion—

(a) order the certificate of eligibility of any registered bookmaker to be delivered up and the registration to be cancelled;
(b) order the certificate of eligibility of any registered bookmaker to be suspended for such a period as the court may deem meet;
(c) order the person convicted to pay the whole or any part of the costs of the prosecution.—[Wing-Commander James.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

11.42 p.m.

Wing-Commander JAMES: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time".
This Clause is not being moved with any ulterior motive or to damage the Bill, but from an honest endeavour to improve it. It seeks to ensure that bookmakers on the tracks shall be registered in conformity with the recommen-
dation of the Royal Commission, who on page 102 in their Final Report state specifically that,
The police witnesses and the representatives of bookmakers all favoured the adoption of some system of licensing or registration.
The objects of registration are set out in page 101 of the Report, in which it says that
it would help to eliminate welshing and fraud.
On page 165 the Royal Commission implement that opinion by a specific recommendation that
All persons who carry on business as bookmakers, whether on or off the course, should be registered.
The Government may say that as they are not dealing with off-the-course betting, they cannot register bookmakers on the course. That argument really will not hold water. There would be a certain amount of overlapping, but the sort of bookmaker whose operations this Clause seeks to correct operates both on and off the course. There is no doubt that bookmakers as a whole would welcome registration. To some extent the off-the-course bookmakers are already localised.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. and gallant Member that the Bill does not deal with off-the-course betting, and ask him to confine himself to on-the-course betting.

Wing-Commander JAMES: I am merely seeking to show that there is no conflict of interests in the registration of on-the-course bookmakers, but I will not attempt to pursue that point further. I am not wedded to any line or phrase in the Clause I have put down. It has only been put down in this form in the hope that the Government will accept the principle. Actually the new Clause is based on the Moneylenders Act, and I have no doubt that the Home Secretary could, if he wished, find a much better form of words. It is a question of principle. If the Home Secretary will accept the principle, then no doubt on the Report stage he could produce a suitable Clause. This is a relatively small addition and, unlike a good deal of the Bill, it would have the merit of being popular. I do not think there is any section of the people in the country who would object. Certainly the hon. Member for Bodmin
(Mr. Isaac Foot) would not object to this Clause. It would stop a minor kind of abuse in racing. I am not concerned with the regular racegoer; he can look after himself. It is the general public I want to protect from the bookmakers who are there simply to fleece them. At present the police are helpless in dealing with what is an evil.
The Clause clearly conforms with the sentiments of a little tract on betting issued by the Christian Social Union—a very good tract, written by a very capable man. The Magistrates' Association in their last report, state that they have considered this Bill and have sent a resolution to the Lord Chancellor expressing satisfaction with the Bill, but regretting "that provision for the licensing and registration of bookmakers has been omitted." The effect of the new Clause would be to help the police, help the management, protect the public, and in general to make for better and cleaner sport. I very much hope that the Minister will accept the principle of the Clause, and, if necessary, produce a better Clause for dealing with this matter on the Report stage.

11.48 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has, of course quite properly, quoted the views of the Royal Commission on this problem, and as I know that he desires to achieve the purpose which no doubt we all have in common, I have every sympathy with the idea. But I must say that I do not think that the real object of the Royal Commission would be achieved by dealing with only one aspect of the problem. It is clear that it would be difficult at this period to put into the Bill machinery which would provide for the registration of bookmakers, but the fact remains that unless there is a system of registration of bookmakers in all circumstances you will not be able to control adequately the bookmaking profession. It is therefore, I am afraid, impossible for me at this stage to say that I would accept this Clause. Certainly, I could not accept it in this form. In any case, it would not be desirable to attempt to deal with a problem so large as this, unless we felt that we could do it effectively.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Restriction of betting on dog racecourse.)

(1) Betting by way of bookmaking or by means of a totalisator shall not take place on any day on a track being a dog racecourse, in connection with more than eight dog races, and betting by way of bookmaking or by means of a totalisator on the results of dog races shall not take place on any day on such a track as aforesaid except during one continuous period not exceeding four hours:

Provided that, in relation to any of the four special appointed days fixed in any year by the licensing authority in accordance with this section, the foregoing provisions of this Sub-section shall have effect as if there were therein substituted for the word "eight" the word "sixteen," and for the words "one continuous period not exceeding four hours" the words "a period or periods not exceeding eight hours in the aggregate."

(2) If bookmaking is carried on or a totalisator is operated by any person on any track in contravention of this section, that persons and, if he is not the occupier of the track, the occupier also shall be guilty of an offence:

Provided that where the occupier of a track is charged with an offence by reason of a contravention of this section on the part of another person, it shall be a defence for him to prove that the contravention occurred without his knowledge.

(3) The licensing authority when fixing the appointed days for any year in accordance with this Part of this Act shall also fix four of those days (which four days shall be the same for the whole of their licensing area) as the special appointed days for the purposes of Sub-section (1) of this section.—[Sir A. Butt.]

Brought up, and read the First Time.

12.58 a.m.

Sir ALFRED BUTT: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I think it is particularly unfortunate that at one a.m. in the morning we should have to discuss any new Clause in connection with this Bill. I feel that the House wishes to go home, but, in spite of that fact, I hope they will bear with me for a few minutes while I explain what is of fundamental importance to this badly drafted and badly conceived Bill. Under Clause 1 of the Bill betting by way of a bookmaker or a totalisator is permitted in connection with racing and greyhound tracks for 104 days a year; but there is no limitation in the Bill as to the number of meetings or the number of races that can take place on any individual day. Elsewhere the Bill legalises totalisators, and I believe that this is the first instance where gambling for private gain is being legalised by legislation.
I think it will be apparent to the Committee that substantially the whole of the profits that are being made out of greyhound racing are derived from the totalisator and it follows therefore that it will be to the interest of those who run greyhound racing tracks to have as many races as possible each day, so that the totalisator may operate as often as possible. I can conceive that it may become very general to have twice-nightly greyhound racing, and continuous performances like a continuous cinema. As far as I can gather, there is no great preparation for a greyhound race. They can follow each other just as quickly as is permitted by the necessary interval for betting. In this Clause, I am proposing that not more than eight races shall take place at any one meeting, and that no meeting shall last more than four hours. I am suggesting exceptions on four days in the year, Bank holidays, on which there should be a limitation of 16 races and a continuous eight hours. It is only fair to tell the Committee that I raised this point upstairs on Clause 1, and had most sympathetic consideration from the Home Secretary. He has kindly considered this Clause, and I am hopeful that he will accept it. I do not think it, is necessary for me to enlarge on the absolute necessity of some such restriction being included

1.4 a.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: The hon. Member raised this problem in Committee upstairs, and I promised then to consider it. I think the solution which he proposes is a reasonable one to deal with a problem which has caused a certain amount of concern. If this is done it will give an added opportunity to the greyhound tracks to run on these four days. At the same time it will put a set limit on the number of races to be run on each day, and I believe that to be generally in accord with the views of the Committee.

1.5 a.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am very glad that the Home Secretary is able to accept this, no doubt after having examined it in detail. Seven or eight years ago these matters were in their infancy, greyhound racing was only beginning, and the Totalisator Bill had still to be passed through this House. The objections then urged to a national sweepstake would have been put forward with quadrupled force if it had been known that we were to have this tremendous system grinding out the money, very often of the working classes, on 104 days in the year. I think it is very creditable that a private Member should have designed such an essential limitation on something which inculcates the habits of gambling in the worst possible form. I am glad the Home Secretary accepts the proposal. It limits to a very small extent the evil which under this Bill is now stereotyped from one end of the country to the other. I trust most earnestly there will come some day a Parliament which will have the courage to deal with this question on its real merits, and not in accordance with the voting pressure that can be brought to bear on it.

1.7 a.m.

Mr. LOGAN: I am just as anxious as anyone regarding the question of betting in the distressed areas. I have heard a great deal of talk in regard to the extension of betting. There is no question that you are dealing here with gambling only in regard to one particular sport. I have heard it stated that there is some respectability in regard to horse racing compared with dog racing. To be candid, I can see no respectability in either. Looking at the damage in the poor areas, I see nothing to be proud of in regard to
horse racing. To be logical, I would have liked to have seen something brought in that would have really dealt with the gambling propensities of the people.

Sir A. BUTT: On a point of Order. Has the hon. Member's speech anything to do with the Clause, which concerns the number of dog races which shall take place on an individual day, and has nothing to do with the general question?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I thought that perhaps the hon. Member's remarks were limited to dealing with the proposed new Clause.

Mr. LOGAN: I want to remind the hon. Member that I did not intervene in his speech. It is very unbecoming—[HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] I do not require hon. Members to tell me that and they will not get me to close by that means. It is very unbecoming in regard to one particular sport to criticise the action of a Member of Parliament. I believe I am on an equality with any other Member of the House, no matter what the opinions may be from any particular quarter. I am exercising my right in the British House of Commons to speak my mind on the matter which is before us. That cannot be denied. Therefore, because I have the right to free speech here, I am not asking anything more than any other hon. Member. I have the right to point out that there is a particular interest that brings forward a proposal which appears to me to be totally inconsistent with the attitude to be adopted in regulating the sport. I am a private Member and the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) compliments a private Member on having a solution. Is it a solution? Some hon. Members are interested in horse-racing, and it may be desired to maintain the position of another sport, but I want to see fair play. I am fully convinced that if this House which professes to deal fair and square with a particular interest means anything at all—[Interruption]. If the hon. Members had paid more attention to this Bill, as I have, and had sat as long in this House as I have, there would not be so much grinning about it. I am referring to two hon. Members.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I can assure the hon. Member that I am not grinning.

Mr. LOGAN: I am aware of that, but one would have thought that, when we were debating a subject of this kind, at least more attention would be paid to the remarks which are being made. My remarks are absolutely pertinent. I am fully conscious and sober, and I know what I am talking about. This provision means a limitation, so let us examine the position. Here is a sport—I do not express any opinion as to whether it is good or bad—which has been exercised on some tracks for six days a week. We are told that it is most absurd that a sport should go on from morning to night. It is not possible for sports to go on like that. Nothing of the kind is possible. You cannot get an audience from morning to night, and therefore, though the regulation of hours is within the province of this House, we should be reasonable. You are taking away from these people who operate for six days a week, and you are making it 104 days per annum. That is two days a week. If they are dishonourable men you should get rid of them, but if they are honourable they should be dealt with on a basis of equity. I am not dealing with the merits of horse racing but with dog racing. I do put it to the House that if you want to have a fair and square deal with the penalties that you are exercising in this Bill—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The question of penalties does not arise under this Clause.

Mr. LOGAN: I am fully aware that they do not, but I am trying to point out some considerations in connection with the curtailment which is taking place and that it is curtailing the operation of a sport from six days to two days a week. I think I have a right to point out that this curtailment is taking place and to put before the Committee my reasons for thinking that the suggestion now brought forward should not be accepted. I understand that these people pay rates and taxes, Income Tax and Entertainments only. These things, along with the value of the property in their possession, will suffer depreciation. I believe there is no question of compensation.
I wonder if there is any other sport in this land to which the House would be prepared to see the same curtailment
applied as is suggested here, namely, twice a week for four hours. What is the object? I am in agreement with the four hours, but not four hours continuous sport. I have an objection to continuous hours in regard to dog tracks. I say that if there is to be a limitation, some compensation in regard to the question of income and regulation of tracks should be offered to enable these people at least to exist. They should say that these people should be able to sub-divide the four hours into two hours, giving two hours of sport, as in the case of the cinema or theatre, because it is long enough on the race track or dog track. An opportunity should be given by some method like this to enable these people to have a chance of carrying on. I do not think it is fair as it stands, nor is it reasonable. It seems to be a case of vested interests in regard to this particular matter. While you believe that sport should not be crushed out, either directly or indirectly, every effort is being made to get rid of something that you think is obnoxious. That is most unfair.
I have found vested interests in this City—it cannot be disputed—which are absolutely antagonistic and anxious to get a monopoly. I have tried to seek a working arrangement with some, but every effort has been made to see that no arrangement can come about, except that these particular tracks should be put out of operation. I therefore object. I know that with his big majority whatever the Home Secretary accepts will be the verdict of the House and that all I can say will count for nought. At least I have this knowledge that I am free to express my opinions, no matter who is against them. It would be reasonable for the Home Secretary to give to these people, if it is to be only two operating days, some opportunity of at least having two separate meetings. That would be four meetings in two days. Otherwise, let the right hon. Gentleman be honest and say "we are going to get rid of them altogether." I take up a different attitude altogether. If you want to get rid of them, get rid of dog racing and horse racing, but I am not prepared to give a vested interest the right to crush out others. Therefore,
I hope that the Minister will not accept this proposal and that the House will say that it would not be doing a fair and square thing.

1.20 a.m.

Brigadier-General CRITCHLEY: I rise to support the Clause. There are one or two points I would like the Home Secretary to consider. I think that probably eight races are too few to enable a great number of tracks to exist. A great number are going out anyway. That, I think, is a good thing, but a number of tracks which ought to live will go out if limited to eight races. On licensed tracks there are 43,000 registered greyhounds and 22,000 registered owners. All of these owners have paid considerable sums of money for the greyhounds they own, and, if the racing be limited to eight races per meeting or per day, these greyhounds are not going to be able to race and will have to be got rid of. I think that the hours should be consecutive, and that three or four hours are quite enough. I would like to support the Clause.

1.21 a.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I would like to point out that we are making great changes, or we are laying down what should have been in the original Bill? Once we fixed the 104 days we should have fixed the racing times. I gather from previous speakers that this is the result of an agreement which took place upstairs in Committee.

Sir A. BUTT: Immediately this loophole was pointed out by me the Home Secretary promised to give it his fullest consideration. It was a very difficult Clause to draft and great care was taken. The Home Secretary approved the Clause. There was no agreement. The right hon. Gentleman gave me his assurance that he would do his best to comply with my wishes and criticism.

Mr. LOGAN: He would not give anything definite, but he said he would consider it Which, like every promise, means nothing.

Sir A. BUTT: The hon. Member seems to suggest that I have other interests.
Unfortunately his memory is very short. He made some innuendoes in the Committee and apologised.

Mr. LOGAN: I have never apologised to the hon. Member. I have not apologised yet, and I never intend to do so because what I have said is true and the hon. Member well knows it.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: So far as my hon. Friend is concerned, I do not cast any aspersions. I simply wish to point out the extraordinary difficulties in which we as Members of the House of Commons are placed at this particular stage. I know nothing of why four hours, or two hours, should be best. I am accepting it as the judgment of the Home Secretary and of my hon. Friend here. May I make one more representation about this limitation of dog racing? There is a form of gambling provided abroad for the rich, at casinos, but they are prohibited in this country and it is humbug therefore to say that this is a Bill to deal with the poor man's form of sport. It does no good to attempt to create any class prejudice in that way.

1.23 a.m.

Mr. PIKE: My opposition is that it is creating something against which the Government had definitely legislated. On the other hand, it is facilitating to a much larger extent something for which the Government have legislated. The Government decided that 104 racing days per year were sufficient for dog racing tracks. The hon. Member who has moved this Clause knows perfectly well that eight dog races in four hours will bring about the complete ridicule of this sport.

Sir A. BUTT: It does not necessarily follow that they must have four hours.

Mr. PIKE: I understood that the Home Secretary had more or less stated what the Clause contained. There is no doubt that dog tracks possessing clubs within their area and on the track, drinking bars, drinking clubs, card playing and billiard clubs, and other forms of sport generally associated with clubs, will naturally take advantage of the four hours. Will it mean that there will be eight races during those four hours and that the races will take place every half-hour; or will they take place as they take place to-day, roughly every seven to twelve minutes according to the size of the track and
according to the circumstances of the people attending the track? If it be in any way intended to curtail racing to one race per half-hour—and I venture to suggest that that is the underlying intention—it will completely destroy the whole sport.

Sir A. BUTT: I do not want the hon. Member to be misled. He will see that there are eight races and that they are not to occupy more than four hours. In practice, he knows perfectly well they will not have races every half-hour. They will probably have half-an-hour before the start and a quarter-of-an-hour interval. The hon. Member may be very glad they use their facilities.

Mr. PIKE: The question is what this empowers them to do, and, in my submission, what the Clause will empower the occupier to do is that which will be done. I am satisfied that this Clause is really an attempt to bring about the complete destruction of Clause 1 of the Bill. The hon. Member who spoke last supported the new Clause on the ground that it would be generally advantageous to dog racing. I am perfectly convinced that it will not be generally advantageous to it. If we are going to have it for only 104 days, let us have it, but not under conditions which will create a monoply for the best tracks in the country. The hon. and gallant Member is interested in the most up-to-date track in the country. In the Provinces they are divided into probably four or five separate interests. They are smaller tracks which could not compete with the hon. and gallant Member's track, or tracks.
What will it mean if this Clause be accepted It will mean that there will be power completely to smash competition from whatever source that competition may arise. These smaller tracks will either have to come into the track of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken or will have to go out by sheer poverty on account of the conditions with which this Clause will confront them. I submit that the Home Secretary with his legal assistance can conceive and create a much more acceptable Clause than the one which is before the Committee at the present moment. I am perfectly aware that the eight races for the whole day is not the intention of the Committee or the public, and I believe
that there should be a curtailment of restrictions. This Clause actually means the complete abolition of the smaller competitor, first, to the advantage of the monopolistic; and, secondly, if there be anything left, to the advantage of those who are more interested in the sport of horse racing than dog racing.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: I would like to associate myself with the hon. Member for Twickenham (Brigadier General Critchley) in the acceptance of this idea. I hope the Home Secretary is not wedded to the eight races as there is not the slightest doubt that in the provinces there is a demand for a matinee. Without the opportunity for a matinee some of these smaller tracks could not exist, and it means that if there is to be a matinee there must be twelve races. I will support the Clause; but I hope the Home Secretary will give further consideration to the figure of eight before the Report Stage.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.

FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Provisions regulating the establishment and operation of totalisators on dog racecourses.)

3.33 a.m.

Commander MARSDEN: I beg to move, in page 27, line 6, to leave out the words "a mechanically or electrically operated," and to insert "an."
This Amendment simply means that the hand-operated tote should be allowed in addition to the electrically or mechanically operated tote. The sole purpose is to allow dog racing to have a fair share with horse racing. In horse racing the hand-operated tote is allowed, and, as experience shows, the hand-operated tote has come into fashion in many cases where they cannot afford a mechanical tote. The hand tote is more easily manipulated, and I myself see no reason why dog tracks should not have the same advantage. It seems to me logical that the smaller tracks which the Bill allows to operate, when they wish to run things on a small scale, should be able to do so and not find, as they will now under the First Schedule of the Bill, that it is impossible for them to have the tote which it is the desire of the Committee that they should have.
I know it may be said that a hand-operated tote can be tampered with, but so can a mechanical or an electrical tote. There are plenty of safeguards, for you have the licensing authorities who can put in their own accountant and a. mechanic to see that no hanky-panky is going on. If the Home Secretary does not accept this Amendment he will not be showing very great confidence in the ability of the local licensing authorities. There is another reason why I do not think that the mechanical tote should have a monopoly in this country. Practically, every country in the world runs totes nowadays, and that they should have a monopoly in this country does not appeal to me at all. I do not think it is right that anyone should have a monopoly, and I do not think that the hand-operated tote should be abolished in favour of the mechanical tote. There is another point which I should like to put to the Committee. Under this Schedule, the totes set up can only continue if they comply with such conditions as the Secretary of State may by regulation prescribe. If the Home Secretary says "No hand totes," that is all right. If this Amendment be accepted, it will not say that hand totes must be used. It will give full power to the Home Secretary to permit them where he thinks they may reasonably be used for the benefit of the people who go to dog racing.

1.37 a.m.

Captain A. EVANS: The hon. and gallant Member for North Battersea (Commander Marsden), in his speech, really answered his own argument when he told us that a hand tote can be more easily manipulated. There is not the slightest doubt that the Home Secretary by legalising totalisators at dog tracks has incurred a moral responsibility, and as a consequence I suggest that it is up to him to approve of a type of totalisator on which fraudulent practices either by the owners or the operators cannot be effected in any way. My hon. Friend says that there is practically no difference in fact between a hand-operated tote and a fully mechanised tote. A hand-operated tote is worked by using a series of pre-printed coloured tickets which are sold from different booths between which there is no connection. On a track where there are some fifty or sixty booths it is not practicable
to have supervising accountants in every telling booth, so it would be quite possible to have duplicate rolls of tickets in those booths, and once the race is over there is nothing to prevent a possibly dishonest operator removing a number of them and thus reducing the dividend to be paid to the public.

Mr. PIKE: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree that while it is possible it is hardly practicable, because the moment the dogs start it is a condition that the number of units must be posted on the slate outside the booth. After the dogs finish and the winner has been declared, the winning units are declared according to the position that each dog holds in the race.

Captain EVANS: My hon. Friend would be the first to appreciate that it is absolutely impossible instantaneously to collect the numbers of tickets sold by individual booths all round the course. Let me compare for one moment the operation of a fully electrically-operated, totalisator. The ticket which the investor receives as a receipt for the bet he is making is printed on plain paper at the time that the bet is made. As soon as the betting closes, just previous to the "off" bell being rung, these machines are automatically locked from a central control room. It is impossible for a ticket to be sold after the betting has officially closed. Likewise it is absolutely impossible for any individual operator working the machines to get a ticket for the race which is actually being run. It has been proved beyond doubt that if you had an accountant to check the calculation of the dividend, and a mechanician employed by the local authority who is on duty in the control room, none of these fraudulent practices can be exercised. The hand-operated totalisators are merely a system of pre-printed tickets. There is absolutely no control, and I submit that for practical reasons it would-be impossible to ensure that the dividend to be received by persons who were successful in their betting would be one according to the number of units invested on any one race.

1.43 a.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: We have considered this problem very carefully. It is clear that unless it is mechanically operated a
totalisator does lend itself to manipulation. It has served of course on horse racecourses, where the number of days racing is very small and where it does not pay to have mechanically-operated totalisators. But here we are dealing with a problem in which there are 104 racing days, and on four of these days afternoon meetings as well. There is another difference compared with horse racing, in that in horse racing there is no private profit. In this case, such rake-off as is permitted goes to those running this industry. In these circumstances the two cases are different. I understand also that there are a number of competing firms, and that there is no question of this becoming so circumscribed that there is only one firm; and in addition smaller tracks will require smaller and less costly machines.

1.45 a.m.

Mr. CLARRY: I am sorry to note that the Home Secretary is not prepared to consider this point. While this Bill gives certain facilities to the public in respect of betting on the totalisator, it seems to deny that same public the opportunity of betting on hand machines, which I understand are more suitable for double-event pools, and owing to their lower capital cost may be introduced on tracks which could not afford the larger expenditure on the electrically-operated machine. I am sorry to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South (Captain A. Evans) in this matter. He did not impress me very much on the question of fraud. I understand that the manual totalisator is in operation on a great number of horse-racing tracks, where it has displaced the more expensively operated electrical totalisator. The Home Secretary did not impress me very much with his argument that because he has taken the precaution to have accountants, appointed by the licensing authority, who are present during the time that the totalisator is operated, that should be sufficient to safeguard the public. I hope the Home Secretary will think on reflection that he should give the public the use of the manual totalisator under this Bill—a privilege now enjoyed by those who patronise horse-racing.

1.48 a.m.

Mr. LOGAN: I hope the Home Secretary will go back on what he has said.
I have it on the best authority that the hand totalisator is reliable and is 100 per cent. true.

Captain A. EVANS: Will the hon. Member explain what check there is again fraudulent practices?

Mr. LOGAN: Yes, I will give the whole system. There are four booths where tickets are sold. The tickets have numbers, from one to 100, or one to 1,000. Just before the race is due to begin, down go the windows. The accountant is able to say the number of tickets issued. He knows there has been 57 tickets issued, or twice that number, 114, or 1,057 or 2,114. That kind of arithmetic is all right. It is an exact science.

Captain EVANS: If there is an extra roll under the seat it is 4,000.

Mr. LOGAN: It comes as a great shock to us to hear that you cannot have honest accountants to check the machines. A chartered accountant placed in supervision surely provides a guarantee of reliability. If you issue two rolls at 36, that would be 72 whether you are dealing with a tote or a hand-manipulated machine. You cannot see what is going on there, and I have not found anyone interested in business who can say what amount of money should be in the check. Whether it be a hand machine or a tote, the most illiterate people and the highly educated, would want to know when they came to the till how it was that there was not more money in it. There may be something wonderful in the tote and in its mechanical devices, but there is also a very peculiar phase in what has occurred to-night to which I want to draw attention. It may be that my remarks and strictures on the hon. Member for Balham (Sir A. Butt) have been a little past the mark. I was bound to rebut some of the things he said, but I did it in the heat of the moment, and I was going to apologise.

Sir A. BUTT: I accept that.

Mr. LOGAN: The House of Commons has agreed, and I, like anyone else, must abide by that decision. You have agreed to limitations, and now we have to consider the advisability of a hand totalisator or a hand machine. We are told by those who have to work the mechanical tote that it is a very expensive item. I am
told by some small track owners that it costs £6,000 or £7,000, and that in one instance it cost £10,000. I believe that to-day some machines can be bought at about £2,000 or £2,500. But people are not to have the same power of operation. You have curtailed the days of operation and you have made it impossible for them to know whether they can carry on. I do not believe there is an unlimited amount of money or an Eldorado or that stocks will go up in connection with this business. Accountants are honourable men and Income Tax authorities will accept their word as being reliable. In a short time this particular trade or sport will disappear for there will be very few tracks left in the country. They will automatically disappear. If this sport comes along and can show a reliable formula whereby the Government are not going to be defeated out of any income, I think the Home Secretary should accept it.
May I point out from my knowledge and from inquiries I have made, with regard to fixing July, 1935, as the date for the Act to become operative, that it will be an impossibility for some tracks for they will not be able to put a totalisator on the track. The tracks will not be able to conform to the law by the proposed date of operation, July, 1935. I have found on inquiry that it will take six or seven months in many instances before these people will be able to get the machines, and there is also the question of the expense. It has been put to me in the last three weeks that it will be utterly impossible to get the machinery installed, because there will be a rush, and some of the smaller tracks which cannot afford to come along with ready cash will not be able to get their orders executed and will be left in a hole. I am wondering what the decision will be in regard to some of the tracks when the Act becomes operative in July. How will you deal with these bodies of people who must comply with the law? I know they need not have a tote and that they can have a bookie on the track. That is one of the peculiar anomalies, but, if a firm wants to carry on, it will want a mechanised or a hand tote. I suggest that because of the many difficulties the Home Secretary might be reasonable. A Scotsman at two o'clock in the morning should be the most reasonable-minded
person, and I hope he will accept the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

1.56 a.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 27, line 11, after "operator," to insert:
shall take all such steps as are necessary to secure that, so long as the totalisator is in use, it is in proper working order and is properly operated.
3. The operator.
The object of this Amendment is to secure some supervision.

Mr. LOGAN: Is it any use asking the Minister for any concession? Is it worth while discussing anything Are we in this position, that in reply to whatever is said, the Home Secretary will say "No" Let us know where we are, because the whole thing is only a farce.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 27, line 11, after "shall," to insert:
before receiving any bets in connection with any race, post in a conspicuous position on the track a notice showing the minimum stake (hereinafter referred to as the betting unit') which will be accepted at the totalisator from persons betting on that race, and shall.
This Amendment and a subsequent Amendment deal with the problem of how much should be taken from the totalisator by the company who may be operating it.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment to line 11 deal with this subject? I thought it was a new one.

Sir J. GILMOUR: It is part of the same thing as that dealt with on lines 16 and 19.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: In that case, I understand that these Amendments really form one composite Amendment, dealing not only with the percentage to be deducted but also with the question of breakage money. In that case, I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee that the Home Secretary should explain them together.

Sir J. GILMOUR: The Committee will remember that, as the Bill was originally drafted, it was stated that 3 per cent. was to be taken off. When the matter was being discussed in another place it was then decided that the 3 per cent.
was rather narrow from the point of view of expenses, and the Government agreed. that it must be increased to 5 per cent. Then there was the further problem of what was known as the breakages. At no time, as the Government understood this problem, was it understood that these breakages added to the 5 per cent. would amount in the total to more than 6 per cent. at the very outside. It has since been ascertained that on some tracks the unit of betting may be altered and that may materially change the position. In these circumstances, the present Amendments are put down with the clear object of declaring in unmistakable language that the total to be taken off is only 6 per cent. It is rather a technical matter, and I hope I have explained to the Committtee its meaning.

2.1 a.m.

Mr. HOROBIN: Would you, Captain Bourne, for the convenience of the Committee, indicate to us whether you propose to call the Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto)—in page 27, line 16, to leave out from "per-centage," to the end of the paragraph, and insert
as will produce a sum equal to the cost of operating the totalisator added to five per cent. on the capital cost of the erection and equipment of the totalisator, as certified by the accountant to be appointed under the provisions of paragraph three of this Schedule"—
Or either of the Amendments standing in my name—in page 27, line 16, after "cent.," to insert—
or such lesser percentage as the Secretary of State may from time to time, by regulations, prescribe for any class of track.
And in line 26, at the end, to insert—
and (c) in the case of any totalisator which has been in operation for more than twelve months, when in any operator's financial year the total amount so deducted, less the certified costs of operation during the previous financial year shall equal seven per cent. of the capital cost of the totalisator as certified for the purpose of this Schedule by the accountant, no further such deductions shall be made in that financial year.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No, I do not intend to call them, because it is obvious that if five is left out and six inserted the other Amendments would not read. I propose to take the discussion on the proposals of the Government.

2.2 a.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I hope there is not going to be a general discussion on this question. The right hon. Gentleman has quite rightly explained that in the original Bill there was three per cent. taken off. In the terms of the series of Amendments it simply means that the total net rake off will amount approximately to 6 per cent. I think that that is perhaps better than the proposal in the Bill when it came from another place. May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman proposes to insert the. words of his Amendment on page 2000 of the Order Paper—in page 27, line 19—to leave out from the beginning to "and" in line 21 and to insert:
(a) where the number of pence in the amount payable in respect of each betting unit staked by a person winning a bet is not exactly divisible by three, then—

(i) if the remainder does not exceed three halfpence, it may be retained by the operator; but
(ii) if the remainder exceeds three halfpence, the amount payable in respect of each betting unit staked by the said person shall be deemed to be increased to the next greater number of pence which is so divisible."

If it be intended that the operator can only take 6 per cent., why worry about the breakages? The words here seem to be so give and take that ultimately they may mean nothing to the operator, and nothing to the client. Would it not meet the same purpose if the whole of these words were omitted leaving the operator to share out to the least possible minimum on every race. He would not necessarily have to go to decimal points so long as the take off had been this 6 per cent. on the seven or eight races to the last common denominator.

2.4 a.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: This is an interesting Amendment. I understand the object of the breakage is to avoid the inconvenience of paying out half-pennies and to give out the money in reasonably round sums so that the transaction can be done quickly. It has been worked out to 1½d. so as to retain the average. That becomes 1 per cent. on a dividend of 150 pennies. Taking the case of the 2s. unit, I should imagine that the case where it is 150 pennies is unusual because in most cases it must be less than 12s. 6d. It is a little difficult to find out what the breakages will be. I imagine that in
general the present system represents a balance of more than 1 per cent. I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman has been studying what is the actual profit, and I would be grateful if he would tell me the result of his observations.

2.7 a.m.

Mr. T. SMITH: I think the right hon. Gentleman has put down an Amendment which rather meets the position. As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman has been prepared to increase the percentage from 5 to 6 and he reduces the amount the operator will get from the breakages. On balance, it appears to work out at 50–50, and, if that be so, the Amendment meets the position more favourably than one which I have later on the paper. With regard to the calculation of the hon. Member, I do not think that it matters what the odds are. I think that the Amendment of the Home Secretary meets the point I had in mind.

2.8 a.m.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Some of us had some concern, and we expressed it in the earlier days following the statement of the noble lord in another place when he said that he was taking great care that there should not be a financial return to those who operated the tracks. He consented to the raising of the percentage from 3 to 5 per cent. later. When we heard that it was to be raised from 5 to 6 per cent. our apprehensions were increased. I am satisfied that the whole arrangement made in relation to the system of breakages is on the whole a fair arrangement and I associate myself in approving of the Home Secretary's proposal.

2.9 a.m.

Commander MARSDEN: I hope I am not chasing a rabbit instead of a hare. If I am, I hope that the Home Secretary will warn me. It seems that it depends on the unit. I see nothing to say that it shall be 2s. unless the Home Secretary has the power under Clause 1 of the First Schedule in which it states that the totes must comply with such conditions as the Home Secretary may lay down.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: May I put a point to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. The position is that it becomes a complete
matter of indifference because on the average over a long period there is no balance at all.

Commander MARSDEN: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the explanation, but I should still like to know whether the question of the unit is one within the control of the Home Secretary. Supposing that a racecourse decides upon a minimum of sixpence, there will be a great many more bets made and the turnover will be greater. I should like to know whether in that case he controls the actual unit.

Brigadier-General CRITCHLEY: It is not possible to work actually to 6 per cent. and clear the thing up by the end of the day. On the present basis of the 6 per cent., breaking up or down at the end of the day's racing, it will work very closely to 6 per cent. or a little less.

2.12 a.m.

Mr. HOROBIN: If I understood the ruling of your predecessor in the chair, Sir Dennis, we are now discussing generally what is in effect the most important matter in the whole of this Bill so far as it relates to Government policy in regard to tracks owning totalisators. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Measure has referred to the control of the profits from gambling as being his reason for not accepting other restrictions. I refer particularly, for instance, to the question of the minimum charge which had support in a number of parts of the House. His only objection to it was that it was unnecessary, because the profits of gambling were strictly limited. This control of Profits rests upon the assumption upon which the whole of the Government policy is based, namely, that there will be no profit from these totalisators going to the owners of the tracks and that this rake-off is merely a deduction that will balance their expenses and that nothing more is provided. That, I understand, is the basis of the whole of this section of the Bill. Surely, it is likely that a flat rate applied to large and small tracks will be such as either to drive the latter out of business or to give an equally larger profit to the big track. To the ordinary business man it would seem impossible to get the same rate of profit say frown Lyons on the one hand and a small tea shop on the other
for 6 per cent. of the turnover. If 6 per cent. be sufficiently large to enable the small tracks to continue in business, what is going to happen to the enormous tracks represented by my hon. Friend opposite? We are, then, proceeding on the basis that very great profits will in fact be made from the gambling which takes place upon those tracks. It has been represented to me and to other hon. Members that the large tracks would have taken 3 per cent.
I am confident that the Home Secretary is determined as far as he can that no profit comes from gambling, but I cannot say that he has made out his case. We ought to be perfectly certain that the right hon. Gentleman has chosen the right method of ensuring that no profit does come to these dog tracks. I will go further and say that if the number of tracks does diminish it is obvious that there will be a greater amount of betting in the enormous casinos and there will be a bigger rate of profit upon their turnover and a bigger rate of profit upon their capital, and then you get the very dangerous position that they will by getting a profit out of gambling be enabled more and more to increase their facilities for betting and still further encourage it all over the country. That may be a false fear, but I submit it is not an unreasonable fear, and it is one which ought to be exercised by the Home Secretary before we leave this last chance of dealing with it. I understand, however, that Amendments are not to be called which would have the effect of lowering the rake-off. I do see danger in the way the right hon. Gentleman has dealt with this question by limiting the profit, and we should not leave it until he has explained to us that this method will have the results which he expects. I hope my right hon. Friend will intervene again in this discussion and argue at much greater length what he has seen fit to do.

Sir I. GILMOUR: I hope the Committee will not continue the discussion at great length. We have had discussion upstairs and on the Floor of the House for a very long period. The whole effort of the Government in drafting this Bill has been as far as possible to limit any undue profit on these concerns. It is a task of very great difficulty, and it is in an honest endeavour to put a limit on these profits that we have devised this Amendment. I
have looked at it from many aspects, and I have come to the conclusion that this is the best. I hope it will be found to achieve the desired result.

2.22 a.m.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: When this Bill was originally drafted it was publicly stated on behalf of the Government that the object was to give such a rake-off as would pay the expenses of the totalisator only, leaving nothing for the promoters by way of profit. When the Bill was printed the figure deemed sufficient to satisfy that proviso was three per cent. Now we are told the figure is to be doubled to six per cent. We have had no explanation from the Home Secretary what mathematical reasons or figures there are in support of the enormous change of view by the Government. I had put down an Amendment, which you did not select, Mr. Chairman. It would have had the effect of giving a fixed return and would halve safeguarded that idea of giving no profit. As it is left now, the more people who go through the turnstiles to put money on the totalisator, the greater will be the profit, and there is no limit to the profit that these interests, who have so effectively stated their case to the Government and have met with such a magnificent response, may be able to reap. It has been worked out in one of the most prominent groups of tracks that the amount of money going through the totalisator in a recent year was £300,000. Under the Bill the amount of rake-off first provided, three per cent., would have yielded £13,000. Now that has been increased to £18,000. Against that there will be certain costs. The capital cost of putting in a totalisator is believed to be about £15,000. That is for one of the most expensive electrical totalisators.

Captain A. EVANS: If the hon. and gallant Member has in mind a totalisator capable of the turnover to which he has alluded, the cost would be far in excess of £15,000.

HON. MEMBERS: What is the cost?

Captain EVANS: The cost of the totalisator at Ascot, which passed through some 2,500,000 units is in the nature of £260,000. Totalisators generally cost anything between £2,000 and £260,000.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: I know the hon. and gallant Member speaks with great knowledge on this subject, and that he defended most effectively the Government's principle of having a mechanical totalisator.

Brigadier-General CRITCHLEY: A totalisator capable of putting through the amount of money you suggest would cost considerably more than £15,000. The totalisator at the White City cost £86,000.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Those figures are at variance with mine, and only show how necessary it is for the Government to produce some figures. I have estimated that there would be total working costs of £6,000. If you subtract that from £18,000, you get a net profit of £12,000.

Brigadier-General: CRITCHLEY:
the present number of 104 days per year, you would not begin to do anything like the sums the hon. and gallant Member has quoted. Cutting down the number of days has naturally cut down the amount of betting.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: The figures I am quoting, it is true, were worked out on a voluntarily imposed basis of three days per week. Although it is a fact that there are only to be two days per week, there are to be certain tit-bits. If I revised my figure of profit and put it at £10,000, one we would all be jealous of, it would still be far removed from the no-return we are told was going to be the principle for these courses. I can only voice my protest at the weakness displayed by the Government to the greyhound racing interests for the sake of getting their Bill.

2.29 a.m.

Mr. HARCOURT JOHNSTONE: I have been feeling increasingly anxious in the later stages of this Bill, and it now appears that a concession has been made which may result in a very large financial gain to their large tracks. If the operation of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Balham and Tooting (Sir A. Butt), excellent in principle, and the insistence by the Government on the use of the mechanical totalisator on the smaller tracks, are to be financial obstacles, then it is true that more and more custom will be driven to the larger tracks. If at the same time an increase in the percentage of profit is allowed, then you are going to have very large
profits made indeed. As far as I know there was, no limitation imposed on the dividends which dog racing tracks may pay. In that respect, they differ from horse racing tracks in which a limitation is imposed by the Jockey Club. A racecourse company cannot claim a licence to race except on condition that it does not pay a dividend exceeding 10 per cent. That is a wholesome regulation imposed from within the industry. Here, while the Government are taking a very large share of the responsibility for the running of dog racing, it seems not unreasonable that they should impose very strict financial conditions upon that industry. The fact is that for the last hour or so the right hon. Gentleman has consistently ignored the appeals made on behalf of the smaller industry. I ask him to consider between now and the Report Stage whether he cannot find some method of limiting the profits which he is allowing to stand under the Schedule.
It may not be unreasonable on certain figures to allow this specific percentage, but it is quite clear that the percentage cannot be any check on final profits. Should anybody make very large profits on dog racing tracks, I think it will be held that the Government have acted wrongly, in their responsible position, if they have not taken some care to give themselves an opportunity of checking the size of profits. As it is, they leave themselves no opportunity for doing so. I am sure it is not beyond the ingenuity of the Home Office draftsmen between now and the Report Stage to insert some words which will give them that chance, and I very much hope that the right hon. Gentlemen will do something of that nature. It has rather left a painful impression on a number of hon. Members that the interests of the larger tracks seem to be solely catered for in this Bill. It would do much to remove that impression if the right hon. Gentleman could devise some scheme strictly limiting the profits that may be made under the percentage which he is granting to the totalisator turnover on dog racing tracks.

2.33 a.m.

Sir A. BUTT: I do not want to detain the Committee very long, but many of the supporters of the Home Secretary have disliked this Measure from the outset. We have only given our support, because
we thought that the Home Secretary was anxious at all events to give existing dog-racing tracks throughout the country an opportunity of continuing under reasonable conditions. But when we are told that there is to be a flat deduction of 6 per cent. and that that is to cover their expenses and to form their profit, and when we realise that in some of the smaller country places the turnover may be £20, £25, or £30 a day, whereas in large cities, and in London particularly, that figure may be multiplied by ten, we are bound to realize that it will not have the effect of allowing these small tracks to continue. It will drive them out of business and allow a large octopus to collect the remains and to obtain exceedingly large profits. I do not believe that is the intention of the Home Secretary, and I am perfectly certain that it is not the desire of this Committee.
I appeal to the Home Secretary to reconsider this question of the percentage, and to base it on the question of actual expenses, plus a reasonable percentage of profit. We do not want to be hypocrits and say that there has been no profit, but do allow us at all events to give them an opportunity for recouping the actual expenses plus a reasonable profit. From my knowledge of the industry—and have some knowledge—I am satisfied that 6 per cent., or 8 per cent., or 10 per cent., would work unfairly and would mean outrageous profits for the large tracks and only sufficient to exist for the very small ones. I do beg the Home Secretary not to be obstinate on this matter, but to reconsider it and to introduce a Clause on the Report stage which will be equitable and acceptable.

2.36 a.m.

Mr. MOLSON: I must ask the Home Secretary if he will adequately explain the present Section. We have been sitting here until late in the morning, and here for the first time a very serious argument is put forward by the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Horobin). We were perfectly prepared to believe that the Government would be able to give a full and complete explanation of their position and a complete and logical basis for this 6 per cent. I want to enter a protest on behalf of some of us, who are most anxious to support the Government, that the Home Secretary did not see fit to put forward
a serious and reasoned defence of the Clause. I am confident that there is a sound case which can be put forward, and I hope that on a subsequent occasion he will explain to the House why he has taken up the attitude which he has adopted. I feel bound to protest, when a serious speech which obviously made a considerable impression on the Committee, has been made, that all that the Home Secretary was prepared to say was that he and his advisers had gone into the matter and the 6 per cent. was the best basis that could be found and that he asked the Committee to accept it.

Mr. CLARRY: I have one question to put to the Home Secretary if he is going to reply. Is it a fact that the statutory deduction in the case of the Racecourse Betting Control Board is 10 per cent. and even rises to 12 per cent.?

2.38 a. m.

Mr. BRACKEN: I take no interest in the Debate because the Bill is a futile and ridiculous Bill, but having heard the speeches of the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Horobin) and others, which were quite serious and courteous in tone, asking the Home Secretary for information as to how he arrived at 6 per cent., I think he might at least inform the House what is the Government's policy on the point. It is an extraordinary thing that he takes no notice, but gives a fixed and arbitrary figure of 6 per cent. and asks the Committee to pass it through. He has some very warm supporters on the other side of the House and their inquiries call for an answer. This is a ridiculous Bill brought in for no reason apparent to me, but I do object, as a Member of the House who has no interest in dog racing or in anti-gambling regulations. The only defence of the Government's Measure comes from the hon. and gallant Member for Twickenham (Brigadier-General Critchley). I suggest that he ought to be Home Secretary and conduct this Bill. I appeal to the Committee to consider what has happened. The Government have been approached by a number of their most ardent supporters who have raised points of great seriousness, and the hon. Member for Central Southwark put up a reasoned case against
the Bill. The Government have not condescended to give an answer. The only answer has come from the hon. and gallant Member for Twickenham, whom we are all delighted to see here. He is a newly-arrived Member, but, if he is the spokesman for the Government, then we know where we are.
I think the House of Commons makes a very great mistake. We have got very little from the Government who are quite determined to push through this Bill against any arguments. I hope that the Government will have some regard to the conditions of the House. I cannot understand the argument of the two hon. Members who have spoken. Are we to understand that two private Members are to engage in arguments between themselves to settle the legislation of this country. The Home Secretary fixes upon some magical figures and forces the Amendment through without explanation. I Am speaking quite dispassionately, because I consider that the Bill has been brought in to fill up the time until there is some more important legislation. I think that the Home Secretary should give the House some explanation and some reply to the points raised. If he does not condescend to give an explanation, I hope that an hon. Member will move to report Progress.

2.42 a.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I assure the Committee that I have no desire to show discourtesy. There are some in this House who come here and talk and make speeches as if this problem had never been discussed at all. Let us bear in mind that this question of 5 per cent. plus breakages, which was assumed to reach the point of 6 per cent., was settled in another place months ago. If hon. Members who have doubts about the proper working of that arrangement have another scheme to propose, why do they not put it on the paper. Let me say that it was discussed in another place. It has been common knowledge that the 3 per cent. which was proposed originally was thought not sufficient to cover the ordinary outlays and meet the necessary charges. Let me remind the Committee that we have limited the amount that they can get and by this Amendment which I have just explained to the Committee, there is a still further limitation on what might have happened if the
arrangement in another place had been carried out. We are making provision in another Amendment by which the charges will have to be met by these people out of that amount of money after supervision and the like.
You can start on some principle upon which you are going to differentiate, taking in profits and circumstances of each. If you do that, you will set up a system which in my judgment will be impossible to work. We have adopted this method. I do not venture to express the opinion that each and every track will get the same advantage, but we are dealing with the thing in a broad manner with as little machinery to cause trouble to everyone as possible. I have never said that there shall be no profit at all. I have always said that it shall be limited. If hon. Members look up what I did say on the Second reading, they will see that I said "provided that the profit shall be limited as far as possible." That was the situation in which we started out to deal with this problem. I have tried to limit the profit as far as possible. While I appreciate and am ready to listen to the criticism and advice of members in ail parts of the House, I do beg them to remember that we have had to go into this problem, and that it has not been a very easy problem to settle.

Mr. T. SMITH: In the course of the discussions with the various interests did they submit figures? If they did, may we have the figures for guidance.

Sir J. GILMOUR: There have been innumerable meetings and representations to show this or that or the other thing did not meet the case. We have had to take all these into consideration and to form our own judgment.

2.46 a.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I think that the right hon. Gentleman might have given one explanation. It does not affect the argument of the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Horobin). When the Bill went to the House of Lords, 3 per cent, was considered sufficient. In the House of lords, after representations from the interests, the 3 per cent. was raised to 5 per cent, with the breakages. No explanation has been given of the reasons for that increase, or the flat rate complained of. The hon. Member
will appreciate that a fortnight ago in the "Sunday Dispatch" the Greyhound Racing Association intimated that they were not likely to establish a 2s. unit, which with the 5 per cent. and the breakages meant 61 per cent., but that they were prepared to adopt a 6d. unit which, with the 5 per cent. flat rate plus breakages, meant perhaps 11 or 12 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman has met them in time to prevent that extra run. He cuts out breakages and makes the 5 per cent., 6 per cent. It is perfectly obvious to the hon. Member for Central Southwark that the big tracks will get the benefit and the little tracks will go out of existence. That is strictly in conformity with the policy of the National Government. When they gave a subsidy for wheat they gave it not only to the efficient. It is so with every subsidy; they have not sought out efficiency.

2.48 a. m.

Sir J. HASLAM: I have an amendment down to reduce the figure back to the original one of 3 per cent. I put down that Amendment to get some information from the Home Secretary as to why there was this figure of 6 per cent. After the explanation, and taking everything into consideration and as one who has heard the discussion right from the introduction of the Bill—I heard it introduced, and I do not think I have been out of the House for half-an-hour during the discussion; I have not left the House for a quarter-of-an-hour since three o'clock yesterday afternoon I claim that I know something about the Measure—I am satisfied that the Home Secretary has done his best in the circumstances, and I want to say, if there is to be any attack on the Home Secretary or the Under-Secretary, that I do not believe I have heard any other Home Secretary brave enough to tackle this problem and only a National Government would have tackled it. I am quite certain that a Conservative Government would not have done so nor a Liberal or Labour Government. I think it is rather late in the day to start attacking the Home Secretary because he has done something that no one else has done. I think he has given a perfectly satisfactory explanation and that he has done the best in the circumstances. I agree that there must be something in the way of a flat rate. I
am satisfied that the Home Secretary has gone into the matter thoroughly, and I have pleasure in accepting the 6 per cent. and withdrawing my Amendment for 3 per cent.

2.52 a.m.

Mr. HOROBIN: I do not think that the Home Secretary did in fact misunderstand my speech. I was a member of the Committee, and I have watched his progress throughout, and this was in fact the first opportunity we have had of discussing what is a most vital part of the Bill. My speech was used by one speaker as an attack on my right hon. Friend, but I do not think he takes that view. This is, however, a very important matter, and we must be reassured upon it.

2.53 a.m.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question? When he was replying, he said that he was satisfied that he had in this flat rate percentage a sufficient check. What is his intention supposing that owing to the very large increase in the turnover of the totalisators very large new profits are in fact made? Is it his intention to deal with it by fresh legislation if there is no provision in the Bill as it stands for him to check it.

Sir J. GILMOUR: If we are proved to be wrong in the method we have proposed, then obviously there will be further legislation.

Mr. LOGAN: Is it the desire of the Home Secretary to see that all the tracks are annihilated?

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 27, line 16, leave out "five", and insert "six".

In line 16, leave out from "may" to end of line 17, and insert "have specified in the said notice."

In line 19, leave out from beginning to "and" in line 21, and insert:
(a) where the number of pence in the amount payable in respect of each betting unit staked by a person winning a bet is not exactly divisible by three, then—

(i) if the remainder does not exceed three halfpence it may be retained by the operator; but
1240
(ii) if the remainder exceeds three halfpence, the amount payable in respect of each betting unit staked by the said person shall be deemed to be increased to the next greater number of pence which is so divisible."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

2.55 a.m.

Mr. LOGAN: I beg to move, in page 27, line 26, at the end, to insert:
and a further condition that where the ticket, coupon for, or statement of such bet be lost, torn, defaced or unclaimed, the money represented or obtainable upon the presentation of such ticket, coupon, form or statement shall accrue and be paid to the occupier of the track.
I do not wish to waste much time now, but will the Home Secretary kindly consider the points raised in this Amendment before the Report stage.

Mr. T. SMITH: I do not agree with this Amendment, and I should like to ask the Home Secretary, with regard to the Amendment prior to this one, if he will agree that some reasonable time ought to be allowed to the man who has not claimed his bet. I hope between now and the Report stage he will look into the matter.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am quite prepared to look into the matter, but I cannot hold out any hope.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

2.57 a.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 27, line 27, to leave out "operator" and to insert "licensing authority".

This is consequential and provides that the mechanician will be appointed by the licensing authority.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 30, leave out the word "operator" and insert "licensing authority".—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 27, line 34, at the end, to insert:
5. The accountant and the mechanician appointed by the licensing authority under the last foregoing paragraph shall hold office on such terms (including terms as to remuneration) as may be determined by the licensing authority after consultation with the holder of any licence for the time being in force in respect of the track in connection with which the appointment is made, and the remuneration of the accountant and
the mechanician shall be payable by the licensing authority; but so much of the remuneration paid to the accountant and to the mechanician, in respect of the performance of their functions under this Schedule in relation to the totalisator as is attributable to any period during which any person held a licence in force in respect of the track in which the totalisator is set up, shall be recoverable by the licensing authority as a debt due to them from that person.
6. The totalisator shall not be operated at any time when neither the accountant nor a servant of the accountant authorised in that behalf by him in writing is present.
This Amendment makes provision for the payment of the salaries of the accountant and mechanician.

3.0 a.m.

Mr. CLARRY: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 11, at the end, to insert:
Provided that the total amount of such remuneration paid to such accountant and mechanician in any one year shall not exceed the sum of two hundred and eight guineas, or where the period of operation is less than a. year an amount calculated at the rate of two guineas per day for the days on which the totalisator is operated.
I only want to make one comment with regard to this purely administrative matter. The Amendment already proposed provides for consultation with track owners on the appointment of accountants and mechanicians who have to be paid by the track owners. I suggest it is only right that, instead of "consultation", it should be "in agreement with" the track owner, who should have some form of control in the appointment. It would be unwise to make a monopoly of this, and that is why this Amendment to the proposed Amendment is moved.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I do not think any great difficulty arises in this matter. Local authorities regularly employ accountants, there are recognised fees which are paid, it is most unlikely that there will be any difficulty about it, and I think the Amendment is unnecessary.

Mr. CLARRY: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question, "That the proposed words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

3.2 a.m.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I beg to move, in page 27, line 42, after "necessary," to insert:
for the purpose of ascertaining whether the provisions of this Schedule are being complied with.
This is a manuscript Amendment, but the Committee need not be alarmed. We had intended to accept the intention of the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon), but his wording can be improved upon. The object of the Amendment is to prevent the authority from demanding irrelevant documents.

3.3 a.m.

Mr. G. BRAITHWAITE: My name is associated with the Amendment, and my hon. Friend asked me to watch this matter when it came up. I am glad, however, to see my hon. Friend return in time to see the fate of his proposal. We do not pretend to be better draftsmen than the Government, and I gather that the manuscript Amendment will cover the point we had in mind, namely, that the inquiry should be limited to the operations of the totalisator. We were anxious to protect the tracks from having all their books thrown open for examination, which might have had undesirable results. I thank the Home Secretary for having met us in this matter.

3.4 a.m.

Mr. HANNON: May I apologise to the Committee for my absence, and add my thanks to the hon. and gallant Gentleman? It is extremely kind of the Home Secretary. He has been making concessions all along the line. His generous attitude will go down to history in the records of the House for all time.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 28, line 17, after "require," to insert:
for the purpose of ascertaining whether the provisions of this Schedule are being complied with."—[Captain Crookshank.]

3.6 a.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 29, line 15, to leave out from "Schedule," to the end of the Schedule, and to add:
the expression 'qualified accountant' means a person being a member of one or more of the following bodies, that is to say:—
The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales;
The Society of Incorporated Accountants and Auditors;
The Society of Accountants in Edinburgh.
The Institute of Accountants and Actuaries in Glasgow;
The Society of Accountants in Aberdeen;
The London Association of Certified Accountants, Limited;
The Corporation of Accountants, Limited.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I had an Amendment down to the Bill as originally drafted. May I be permitted to move it as an Amendment to the Home Secretary's proposed Amendment?

The CHAIRMAN: That Amendment is not in order.

Mr. MAGNAY: On a point of Order. There must be some misunderstanding in regard to the Amendment down in my name.

The CHAIRMAN: I think it is a very small matter whether the hon. Member's Amendment is put as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment or as a separate Amendment. I gather the hon. Member was under the impression that it was to be put as an Amendment to the Home Secretary's Amendment and, as I see no objection to that course, I will call the hon. Member's Amendment as an Amendment to the Home Secretary's Amendment, but we must get rid first of the words that have to be left out.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That the proposed words be there inserted."

3.9 a.m.

Mr. MAGNAY: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, at the end, to add:
or being a member of a society of accountants incorporated not less than ten years prior to the passing of this Act.
I am sorry that the important Amendment which I have been asked to propose to the Committee should come up at a time of such obvious disadvantage, after 12 hours' sitting. It is a non-controversial matter of business and administration. The Bill is to be administered by accountants, and the only question is who
shall be the accountants responsible to the Ministry. To me, and to many hon. Members, this is a matter of fair play and justice to bring before the Committee. I have no complaint about the bodies and associations which are enumerated in the Home Secretary's Amendment, but I ask the committee why other associations and bodies are not included also? I ask the House to believe me when I say that there are other bodies and associations quite as good as some of those enumerated in the Bill as drafted. The Committee will want to know who decides to ask those on this list—those who are saved and those who are damned—who are the professional men who may continue to earn their livelihood and those who should not. Who is there who has been in the Civil Service who by a stroke of the pen can say whether hundreds of professional men who have earned their livelihood for many years should or should not continue to do their work?
Let me tell the Committee what has been the practice in the past. Not long ago one Society was of the elect; then for some years two others; when the Municipal Audit Bill was passed last year the list was four. Then the Goschen Committee considered the matter long and carefully, and only two years ago they said they could not define precisely what an accountant was. But does this Bill tell us? It is an amazing thing. [Laughter.] It is quite an easy matter for those who are not accountants to laugh and jeer, but this is a matter of bread and butter and a little jam to many men who are very good citizens and good at their business. The Milk Marketing Board recently reduced the list to two, and I suggest that this invidious and arbitrary distinction, without any right to be heard or any appeal, is unjust. I think the Amendment which I propose should be adopted.

3.14 a.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: The societies which are specified in this Bill are those which have been approved by Parliament as recently as last year for the purpose of accountancy. The question of adding to the names of these societies was fully discussed during the progress of the Audit Bill last year. It was then pointed out that Parliament had always taken the line that the question of the status
of bodies should be left to the Local Legislation Committee. That decision is now being carried out, and, in the circumstances, I cannot accept the Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.

Question, "That the proposed words be there added," put, and agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Second Schedule 2 (Enactments repealed) agreed to.

Bill (except Clause 1) reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be con-
sidered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 195.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Wednesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Eighteen Minutes after Three o'clock a.m.